Stop there man, it's useless. The guy is just completely blind by his own life. He believes that anyone can do what he has done without understanding how lucky he was 

Those kind of people are the first to get angry saying "YoU arE loOkinG for eXCUses" when you talk about environmental factors or how most of your destiny isn't in your own hand. For them: successful = smart and capable. unsuccessful = you haven't been smart enough.

They don't give a damn about the thousands of studies that have proven how you're far more determined by your environment (which you have no control on) than by your own abilities.

So for them we're just stupid assholes trying to limit their freedom by trying to impose an unfair equality of outcomes because there is already an equality of opportunity.

I stop it here. This is getting useless.

af_newbie with all due respect you're so far up your own example that there is no point in any kind of dicussion  

You're exactly the "self-made man" example who just can't understand why people aren't succeeding. If you succeeded and others aren't then it must be because you DESERVE it in some way right? After all that's a meritocracy and if other aren't successful it's because they're not smart enough/skilled enough/working enough right?

Well no. Not at all. It's because you're smart, you worked hard, and you got LUCKY.

Successfull people tend to forget how tremendeously important luck was in their success.

I'm for a very poor family and I'm a young engineer in one of the most important company in my country. My first wage was twice more than the wages of each of my parents and twice more than the combined wages of my grand parents who were just manufactory workers. I never lived in the street only because there are laws in my country that make it very difficult to expell people so even though my parents couldn't pay the rent for a few months we got some time to recover.

Was my success mine? Sure. I worked my ass off and my parents too! They sacrificed themselves for me that's for sure. I believe I'm both smart and capable and the company paying me is sure happy to do so.

But more than any of that, I was lucky. And I really wish you were able to see how lucky you were in your success. How you were not rewarded on your merit but on your luck. And how horrible and unfair it is that millions of people, who were born with the same or even better abilities than yours, were not so lucky.

Capitalism manage to make people believe their success is self made, hence the failures must be.

This is just false. Social studies have long proved that humans are more determined by their environment than by themselves. Believing you're mainly responsible for your success is a lie you tell yourself. You're not.

And who controls education?
You REAAAAAAAAAAAALLY need to fuck up seriously to lose a big capital. Especially has you just have to split a tiny part of your capital interest to compensate the poors having the abilities you're lacking in order to succeed...

So we're finally going forward...
You then admit you that capitalism rewards the combination of capital + abilities.

Well empiric analysis will allow you to see that the most important factor in this equation is CAPITAL. You can have all the skill in the world without capital you're really close to nothing. And you can be the most stupid people in the world if you have a tremendeous capital it doesn't count.

That's the answer capitalism gives. You're rich? You can be completely low skilled it's not important, you'll just be rewarded a bit less than if you were skilled. You're poor? Well if you're smart enough you might become a rich slave one day. You'll still have 0 power but as you're usefull you'll have a full belly and a nice car.

Most people today are completely brainwashed in capitalism and corporatism.

They believe that efficiency and innovation can only come from private companies and that shareholders and traders are essential to this world because their almighty skills and abilities allow them to sort the good and the bad and invest only in the good.

That's incredible how people can be so blind at all the examples of how fucked up capitalism is and how efficient public companies can be.

Health system in USA is 15% of GDP while health system in France is 10% of GDP. The difference? France has a public healthcare while USA is private. And don't try to talk about quality, France has always been ahead in terms of health services that's probably what France is best at with nuclear.

In the head of people public means inneficient and biased while private means efficient and fair. How can you even think this while looking at the big companies and shareholders behaviour? The main difference between public and private is that public don't have to make a profit so they're ALWAYS cheaper and better as a service... I'm yet to be given ONE example of a previously public company who benefited of becoming private ON THE LONG RUN.

Cause sure when public companies are sold to private shareholders everything goes well at first. The newly opened market is extremely competitive! Low prices, innovations... But once the market gets a winner you can forget all this, services becomes shit and prices skyrocket.

Look at tansportation costs of UK ( https://londonist.com/2011/11/london-transport-fares-2000-2012 ) evolution! After going private the cost skyrocketed up to 240% its initial value in just 10 years xD

So efficient yeah

So you agree to say that capitalism rewards abilities?

Then why is there a 99% economic immobility in capitalist countries? Just explain that.

Economic immonibility is stronger in capitalist systems than in any other ones, and it's the proof that capitalism does NOT reward ability only capital.

Just address THIS point please

You're just in a stupid "capitalism is better than socialism" thinking which is absolutely not the point of this thread... Let's say you're right and capitalism is better than socialism ok? It's not the point anyway so it doesn't matter.

I mean YOU are the one talking about socialism. I've never even brought socialism in the debate it's you who did that...

You're not addressing any of the points I've made.

That doesn't mean anything. Capitalists  (as in, the people who owns the capital) rewards smart people as a master rewards the good slave. They still have 100% of the power but that's ok because you're a slave living a good life? If that's ok for you then continue living like this...
I'm getting a bit tired here, do you even read me? Please see what I posted already twice and you refused to answer:

If you want to discuss socialism let's go but stop avoiding real arguments.
See above
The best that we've got doesn't mean it's a good system. Capitalism won the system wars after the cold war because URSS collapsed faster but capitalism is collapsing currently just at a slower pace.

So either you try to think a bit outside the box or you continue living in a collapsing society saying "It'S ThE bESt we'VE gOt". That's not an argument that's just an excuse to stop thinking by yourself.
Yeah that tells me that capitalism is great at producing things. Does it mean it allocates ressources well? That it answers to human needs? That it supports an ethical society? That it's a long term solution? That it addresses major problems coming ahead?

I don't think so.

What you fail to understands:

-Capitalism means capital is rewarded. Not skills or abilities, capital. At equal abilities, the bigger capital is more rewarded than the smaller. The bigger the capital gap, the bigger can be the abilities gap.

-It means that rich people become more and more rich. So few people accumulate more and more wealth and that's EXACTLY what has happens for the last 70 years.

-It means few people gain more and more POWER because there is a direct link between capital and power as it is capitalism.

The intervention of governments is PART of the capitalist system. It's linked to power being in the hands of a few.

A simple example: when a company like Google who pays millions in local taxes and employs thousands of people want something from the state they're established in, do you think they have the same weight and power than a new business? Even if this new business is objectively better?


Capitalism rewards not the abilities, the skills, the innovativeness, the social use, the ethical respect. Capitalism rewards capital and that's all. There is a reason for the name.

And they all have been completely rejected by any scientist not paid by big oil corporations ^^

Actually if I remember well it's only 2 scientists who are responsible for 90% of geoengineering articles published in the last 10 years. The two main theories (spreading nano particles in the sky to reflect incoming solar rays or injecting iron in the oceans to make planctons grow faster and absorb more CO2) are non viable and dellusional.

Unless there is a serious scientific revolution climate engineering is and will stay a dream.

Lol, if only... You're missing the big picture here which is that capitalism doesn't hand out enough work for everyone and number of jobs is only decreasing. This means it's not a question of skills only, but mainly a question of luck and being known by the right person.

You talk about capitalism as if it was able to allocate ressources and work in an efficient way while our world is showing it is NOT the case, not AT ALL.
This is an utter lie. Or you're saying that, by chance 99% of rich families children are gifted and ambitious while 99% of poor families children are incompetent and lazy?

You can't justify a 99% economical immobility saying it's a question of "abilities"...

Socialist system doesn't mean anything and is not the subject. If you want to talk about socialism fine but start by answering my question few days ago:

And here you get the two factors that make capitalism a complete and utter failure.

1/ Conglomerated eventually fall under their own weight. That was right and that might still be although internet is really making it difficult to see if this logic will continue. But the problem is that if the company fails, the individuals behind wown't fail.
When a company collapses what happens? First ones to run and take their toll are the shareholders. Shareholders don't fail, when the company collapses they take everything they can, sell everything and after they secured their benefits then the company collapses.

Collapses of big companies is NOT the collapse of the people behind, which means you have a society with 0 or nearly 0 economic mobility. And the more capitalist a country is, the less economic mobility they have...

2/ Legal system is decided by who? By the people in power. Who are the people in power? Those who are currently the shareholders of all major companies... So don't you think there is a problem here?

Best example would be EU which is just a creation of big companies and is clearly an abuse of power from there side. Yet governments encourage it simply because they're owned by big companies.

System is rigged and the winner is clearly identified.

Hey there, would you mind explaining us what you mean by that? I never heard of liquid democracy.

Sure. But where does that come from?

It's a systemic problem, it comes from capitalism itself.

What's capitalism? The reward of capital. It means rich people get richer faster than anyone else. It means few individuals get most of what is produced. It means the very rich peopl get more and more power.

Capitalism leads to the power being owned by a small group of people, that's basically dictatoship with more steps xD

You're making one HUGE mistake here. You're forgetting the entry cost in an established market.

Let's take ANY MARKET YOU WANT! Food, distribution, internet, auto, construction... Anything you want. In any country. There are giant corporations that already own the market and are able to spend billions in marketing, adds or just to buy a possible concurrent.

The problem is that capitalism leads to totalitarism... Totalitarism of big corporations.

When you're small you just CAN'T compete with a company that is able to both corrupt/lobby politicians to keep laws and reglementation in their favor and to attract customer from dubious mass manipulation.

So those companies keep growing and keep gaining more power. Making them even more difficult to compete with.

Completely!

Venezuela in much more complex than just saying "SoCialiSM FaiLLLLs" but that's a good example of power corruption and of how handing everything to the government is NOT a good idea.

But now what if there is no government but everyone rules equally? What if laws are proposed and voted directly by the citizens? What if there is no politician to be corrupted?

Now that's something that might work...

Ok I'm putting TECHSHARE on ignore. He doesn't read people so there is no point trying to discuss with him. Or he reads people and isn't able to make the difference between cause and consequence but that would be sad. Do feel free to feed the troll if you wish though.

That's the point I'm trying to make:
Communism + representative government leads to dictatorship.
Not Communism alone I believe

Isn't there?

I mean it means handing out the power to somebody to rule over you... Isn't that the worst you can do as a human being?

Now picture this: a country in which laws and constitution are proposed and voted by the people and not by a government. It means we all have an equal share of power and we don't have to hand it over to someone. Now that would be a communist country that might work because there would be no one to abuse the system. You can corrupt 100 politicians but you can't corrupt 50 millions people

Funny to see YOU asking if something is unethical.

Nevertheless to answer your question there is nothing unethical to market a ponzi if you DO STATE that it's a ponzi.

A ponzi is very similar to some kind of gambling. If you enter early enough you can get a pretty impressive jackpot. If you don't you lose it all.

Problem is that 99% of Ponzis try to market themselves as honorable business with solid backup. They'll say they're experts in financial transactions, that they're miners looking for funds to expand... Whatever.

But if you clearly say "hey come join us in this ponzi, it's still early you'll get tons of money out of it" then how is that different from advertising for a casino which says "hey come bet your money you can win really big". In both cases you risk money knowing the only certain winner is the bank

As a former investor in crypto project I would say that it's a bit of all of the above.

First we're not in a bull market. Of course that means price of alts and BTC doesn't really goes up, but it mostly means that adoption isn't on the rise. You have to understand that a year ago, we had first the illusion of security that btc price was always on the rise so investing in a project which repays in cryptos was always profitable.

Second number of users was only increasing! Everyday hundreds of new people started crypto, the forum was being abused on a daily bases by thousands of new cryptos enthousiasts. It means a growing market with a growing economy with a growing currency.

Now crypto is on the down and number of adopters is only decreasing. People have less and less crypto assets and they have too many bags just waiting to be sold. There is les liquidity in the market and much less media attention.


If you want to get investors for a crypto project right now you better provide:
-An excellent security, I'd say meeting in real life to make a formal contract is a must above 50k$
-A good reason to go crypto (because it's no longer the trend)
-Of course a solid concept but that's always true.

Completely agree!!! I have no idea what the hell is this hat obsession currently but I find it quite funny ^^

You know who started it?
And I hope it will calm down because it makes it more difficult to identify the members xD

Might be an unpopular opinion... But I think merit works pretty well.

The goal of merit is just to reduce account farming and spam. To find the real great participants of the forum and make them lvl up in ranks.

Once you're legendary, merit is useless. It's here just for the recognition, but an  account with 1000 merit is the same as one with 1700 merit.

I got about 130 merit to spend and I try to spend it, but honestly people raging about merit system mostly don't deserve any kind of merit points.


You can lvl up by actually making good posts. I looked at your post history and haven't given any merit point simply because all your posts are trashy 2 liners. Start making good posts and you'll earn merit.

Because sadly tons of people don't exactly know what they're talking about. Media and people report what actual scientists do and say in a too simple way. Hence most people are sure that climate change is 100% acted 100% understood and 100% linked to human activity even though scientists are the first one to admit climate is one of the most complex and chaotic structure so all we're going to reach are plausible assumption, theories and corelations.

And because you just LOVE being the devil's advocate