Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[rottentomatoes]

RBU is the way to go

[twiifm]

I am not against law, since I believe in private property as fundamental, and that can't be enforced without violence without law. (and thus not a punk)
Government is the only one with the monopole of coercion on a territory, such thing is necessary to enforce law and thus protect private property.

What I am against is any government intervention in the market, since there is nothing to fix. I'll be glad you can point me out example of why it is necessary to have regulation of the market.

I am against any direct or indirect licensing meant to protect a small group of people from competition, (As the taxi example, and some other that are hidden behind the "public good" incantation)
And against any subsidize for dying industries,

Any compromise is not free market.

I think you are confusing "free market" and "unregulated market"

Theres a lot of recent examples in USA where de-regulation caused more harm then good.  Sorry I don't much about France

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

[rokkyroad]

"Socialism or Capitalism?"

Not a lot of difference between the two in reality. Both rife with corruption and greed. Money is always funnelled to the already rich and powerful in both cases. The poor stay poor.

[Ivan Bitcoinowsky]

Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

There is none, what a stupid question that is. And giving such options as socialism or capitalism kills it even further.

Even if you destroy the whole system and step back to living on trees, even then, there are still
those who f**k and those who work their back (doing some shit "essential" to their and species survival).

You should check how animal kingdom works from time to time; apply money and hatred in place of basic physical features, and you have humanity in general.

[Nicolas Dorier]

I think you are confusing "free market" and "unregulated market"

You are right in what I think, a regulated market is not free. Either it is controlled by coercion, either it is not. The line is clear.

I did not know about the California electricity crisis, and I think your premise is that private companies did it on purpose or was provoked by speculation, and that state saved the citizen of such greedy bastard.
But the question to ask is why a private company would act against the interest of its customers, and thus loosing profit on purpose ? This is not a natural course of action of a market.

Let's talk about the "Megawatt laundering" problem of your link.
Cause :

"The California energy market allowed for energy companies to charge higher prices for electricity produced out-of-state."

Effect :

"It was therefore advantageous to make it appear that electricity was being generated somewhere other than California."

My question is : who decided to control the price for electricity at the first place ?
My response is : government by coercion on prices... So how can you call this a market free ? It was not.

When gov imposes prices, there is 2 possibility.
Either the imposed price is lower than the natural price (the one without regulation), and in this case you provoke a shortage. (Because production go down)
This is what happened in this case.

I'll quote Milton Friedman :

“We economists don't know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can't sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you'll have a tomato shortage. It's the same with oil or gas.”

Or, the imposed price is higher than the natural price.
This is what happens in some market like cabs, or even, minimal wages (that is regulation on labor's price).
And in this case, the demand drop, for minimal wages, you get more unemployment, and increased need in welfare.
In the case of Taxi, very few people are using cabs and preferring public transportation, and in the case of Ubber, lots of problem with legislation because it bypasses the imposed rate of taxi for the same service, which provoke injustice and stifle competition.

Let's talk about the "Overscheduling" problem.

the Death Star group of scams played on the market rules which required the state to pay "congestion fees" to alleviate congestion on major power lines

Why does the state accepted at all of paying such fees ?

"Congestion fees" were a variety of financial incentives aimed at ensuring power providers solved the congestion problem

Are the congestion fees payed by power providers or state ? With those two sentences, if I understand correctly, it means that the state acted as a power provider in charge on power line.
So my question is : why the power line is handled by the state and not private companies ?
A private companies would have acted against such scam by making economically costly to reserve a line, preventing spam. But maybe law prevented that ?
If the cost of reservation would be too high, then another company, with its own power line would compete with it.

But no... the state, instead of acting as a rational economical agent, resort to MORE coercion of the kind that provoked the shortage in the first place. (price control)

Then one will say : what does prevent electrical companies to charge high price because of our dependence on energy ?
My response is: Competition by having multiple power providers. And if all abuse, the high price of energy would quickly fire economical forces to switch to alternative and less centralized source of energy.
Solar panel would become economically profitable and would spread very quickly.

This market was not free, and the failure of regulation, ironically provoked more regulation.
This is like the 1940 crisis... the fed created it with bad monetary policies, but instead of collapsing for its fault, it gained even more power by allowing to break the link with gold. (The failure of FED in 1940 was admitted by Bernake)
But during all this time, in all the school we were brainwashed to believe that greed of capitalism provoked the crisis, when it was not. There was no such thing as a free market when a central authority control the supply of money.

[twiifm]

I think you are confusing "free market" and "unregulated market"

You are right in what I think, a regulated market is not free. Either it is controlled by coercion, either it is not. The line is clear.

I did not know about the California electricity crisis, and I think your premise is that private companies did it on purpose or was provoked by speculation, and that state saved the citizen of such greedy bastard.
But the question to ask is why a private company would act against the interest of its customers, and thus loosing profit on purpose ? This is not a natural course of action of a market.

Let's talk about the "Megawatt laundering" problem of your link.
Cause :

"The California energy market allowed for energy companies to charge higher prices for electricity produced out-of-state."

Effect :

"It was therefore advantageous to make it appear that electricity was being generated somewhere other than California."

My question is : who decided to control the price for electricity at the first place ?
My response is : government by coercion on prices... So how can you call this a market free ? It was not.

When gov imposes prices, there is 2 possibility.
Either the imposed price is lower than the natural price (the one without regulation), and in this case you provoke a shortage. (Because production go down)
This is what happened in this case.

I'll quote Milton Friedman :

“We economists don't know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can't sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you'll have a tomato shortage. It's the same with oil or gas.”

Or, the imposed price is higher than the natural price.
This is what happens in some market like cabs, or even, minimal wages (that is regulation on labor's price).
And in this case, the demand drop, for minimal wages, you get more unemployment, and increased need in welfare.
In the case of Taxi, very few people are using cabs and preferring public transportation, and in the case of Ubber, lots of problem with legislation because it bypasses the imposed rate of taxi for the same service, which provoke injustice and stifle competition.

Let's talk about the "Overscheduling" problem.

the Death Star group of scams played on the market rules which required the state to pay "congestion fees" to alleviate congestion on major power lines

Why does the state accepted at all of paying such fees ?

"Congestion fees" were a variety of financial incentives aimed at ensuring power providers solved the congestion problem

Are the congestion fees payed by power providers or state ? With those two sentences, if I understand correctly, it means that the state acted as a power provider in charge on power line.
So my question is : why the power line is handled by the state and not private companies ?
A private companies would have acted against such scam by making economically costly to reserve a line, preventing spam. But maybe law prevented that ?
If the cost of reservation would be too high, then another company, with its own power line would compete with it.

But no... the state, instead of acting as a rational economical agent, resort to MORE coercion of the kind that provoked the shortage in the first place. (price control)

Then one will say : what does prevent electrical companies to charge high price because of our dependence on energy ?
My response is: Competition by having multiple power providers. And if all abuse, the high price of energy would quickly fire economical forces to switch to alternative and less centralized source of energy.
Solar panel would become economically profitable and would spread very quickly.

This market was not free, and the failure of regulation, ironically provoked more regulation.
This is like the 1940 crisis... the fed created it with bad monetary policies, but instead of collapsing for its fault, it gained even more power by allowing to break the link with gold. (The failure of FED in 1940 was admitted by Bernake)
But during all this time, in all the school we were brainwashed to believe that greed of capitalism provoked the crisis, when it was not. There was no such thing as a free market when a central authority control the supply of money.

Here is an example:

No women are allowed to operate pubs and sell alcohol = not free market
Anyone is allowed to operate a pub and sell alcohol BUT it requires an alcohol license = free market & regulated

Utilities are an exception because the govt considers it a public necessity.  The regulations are meant to the protect the public from price gouging.  When regulations were lifted the prices for energy went up.  So you may be theoretically correct that the govt controlled prices.  But it was for the good of the consumer

Actually the energy shortage didn't come from govt control.  It came from market manipulations after deregulation.  You heard of Enron, no?

[Nicolas Dorier]

No women are allowed to operate pubs and sell alcohol = not free market
Anyone is allowed to operate a pub and sell alcohol BUT it requires an alcohol license = free market & regulated

You are linking the definition of free market to a moral principle, when the definition is an economical one.
Better ask yourself wether you consider a free market moral. But this is another debate.

Whether women are or are not allowed to operate pubs does not impact the market of pubs.
This is not a restriction on the kind of beverage the pub can buy, which price it must sell, at which quantity, not a tax incentive, or subsidy.
No impact on incentives of economical forces is made.
Maybe less pub will be created for sure so it impacts the supply a little bit, but the effect of a licence limit the market way beyond such law would do.

Requiring an alcohol license on the contrary, change the economic incentives greatly, and artificially control the supply and demand of alcohol delivered by pubs and thus indirectly its price.
This is not a free market.

The regulations are meant to the protect the public from price gouging.  When regulations were lifted the prices for energy went up.  So you may be theoretically correct that the govt controlled prices.  But it was for the good of the consumer
Actually the energy shortage didn't come from govt control.  It came from market manipulations after deregulation.

The good of the public is always the motto of government.
But there is an economical law that will never disappear : if you control price below their natural rate, then you create a shortage.
The manipulation, if there is, is nothing but the effect of the policy, not the cause.

There is no greed in that, just an economical law that take its root on the fact that every human behave for their own interest. This is not greed, but selfishness, a forgotten natural virtue that even state bureaucrate have despite saying the opposite.
Here is an interesting talk of Milton Friedman on energy policies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj1974Ek4nw

I know that without government control the price of energy would raise.
But that would develop powerful economic incentives to develop alternative and self sustaining energy sources. This is the power of free market and competition.

What government wants to protect against is the chimera they call "natural monopoly", when a market naturally give rise to a monopoly, without coercion.
As I know that first coming into market have powerful advantages, this is not true that the market tends to stay that way for very long.
If a company abuse on its monopoly, resources will go to alternatives and work around.

The government often use the pretext of "natural monopoly" to loot some big businesses. The so called "anti trust" laws that is, we say, for the public.

[Mike Christ]

Red herring #1: individuals acting in a voluntary manner always do so to each others benefit, whether or not it's socialistic or capitalistic; this, combined with the willingness to improve one's condition, and our technological advancements, lead to an overall improved quality of life.  Red herring #2: poverty is not always a problem for the impoverished; a man who chooses to be a vagrant should not be dehumanized into being a "problem."  If someone wants to live in poverty, we should not expect them to improve their quality of life for our sake; it's his life and he'll do as he pleases.

This is not a question about left or right.  It is not a question about "which system is best"; the best system is always the one people prefer in the moment, as even the concepts of capitalism and socialism participate in a market of economic systems, as do political ideologies (or lack thereof) participate in a market where they compete with each other for followers.

It's a question about what happens to a man's labor once he has generated it: does he decide what he spends his labor on, or does another?  If he decides, he will always decide to spend it on improving his condition.  If another decides it, he is stripped of parts of his labor, if not all, to pay for the desires of others, which inevitably leads to increased poverty (sometimes to the point of starvation, e.g. USSR.)  The former, we call libertarianism; the latter, authoritarianism.

The short answer is, you "solve poverty" once a nation's wealth is not being diverted to a select few for the purpose of monopoly (patents, subsidies, lobbying, etc.), war, and welfare, all of which can exist in socialistic and capitalistic systems so long as there is a means for wealth extraction, whether it's central planning or taxation or inflation; this is true for rich and poor nations alike.  Remember that nothing is free, and the more money a nation takes from its citizens for non-market purposes (the act itself being anti-market), the less money people will have to create businesses to generate wealth meaning less employment opportunities for the qualified to become experts and for the novices to become qualified, ergo high amounts of unemployment thus impoverishment, not to mention the natural disincentive that comes from punishing success.

You "solve poverty" through voluntary association, as will it solve nearly all other social problems as well.  Through voluntary association, the fruit of your labor is only diverted where you choose it, returning the power which comes from the motor of the world back to its origin where it belongs: in individuals acting from the self.

[twiifm]

I know you have an admiration for Friedman from our earlier convos.  But looking in hindsight; some people think his influence on deregulation policies in the 90's financial industry led to 2008 GFC.  What's your opinion of this? 

[Nicolas Dorier]

some people think his influence on deregulation policies in the 90's financial industry led to 2008 GFC

I'd like to know the reason why some person thinks that.
What particular policy policy are the talking about ?
What is the reason why a particular policy, would prevent the problem from happening ? but here is my opinion about it.

It comes from Ludwig Von Mises, Interventionism: An Economic Analysis (I did not read the one myself, but I knew his opinion on that matter with his book Theory of Money and Credit).
He explains the cause of boom and bust from the monetary point of view.

When the interest rate is artificially lowered by credit expansion the false impression is created that enterprises which previously had been regarded as unprofitable now become profitable. Easy money induces the entrepreneurs to embark upon businesses which they would not have undertaken at a higher interest rate. With the money borrowed from the banks they enter the market with additional demand and cause a rise in wages and in the prices of the means of production. This boom of course would have to collapse immediately in the absence of further credit expansion, because these price increases would make the new enterprises appear unprofitable again. But if the banks continue with the credit expansion this brake fails to work. The boom continues.
    But the boom cannot continue indefinitely. There are two alternatives. Either the banks continue the credit expansion without restriction and thus cause constantly mounting price increases and an ever-growing orgy of speculation, which, as in all other cases of unlimited inflation, ends in a “crack-up boom” and in a collapse of the money and credit system.[1] Or the banks stop before this point is reached, voluntarily renounce further credit expansion and thus bring about the crisis. The depression follows in both instances.

So, one explanation is that the essence of the GFC is the previous money expansion caused by the low interest rates granted at the courtesy of the FED, and that provoked such bubble.
Those low interest rates policies accommodate government policies that help government to spend more to "stimulate" the economy, a typical Keynesian cure.
But I don't like this explanation since it is difficult to measure and prove, and not specific to GFC.

Other explanation is that government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidized mortgages for people who, under more-prudent rules of borrowing, would never have qualified for a loan from a conservative banking institution.
In other words, banks would never accepted such risks without subsidize of the state, because it would have not been economically profitable for them.
A subsidy, like I say, is against free market principles.
A
Government encouraged the support of affordable housing, the politically correct. The politics pointed finger at banks for redlining.
And continue to do so http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html, and then they think that if they got more power, they would fix the problem.

Here are the reason of the GFC from libertarian point of view, better explained than me : http://mises.org/daily/3263

The quote of Henry Hazlitt, at the end of this article, reflect best the moral of the story on policies of government that created such a mess :

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the long effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Do not count on banks, and any private companies to act for something else that their self interest, as much as you would not act for mine and I would not for you.
So one thing is sure : all they do are rational action for their own survival and benefit, and you can count that such big companies does not want to commit suicide, does not play Russian roulette with their own life, and is not run by stupid people.
Even if they may be greedy, greediness only follows incentives blindly for maximum individual profits. So the question to ask is where came from these incentives to take risky loan ?
Government knows that and act with price control / taxes and subsidize accordingly.

Why I love Bitcoin is that Satoshi found a response to direct greediness for the self maintenance of its invention, not for its self destruction.
Politics know that people are selfish and greedy, they know how to direct such forces. But they just blame it when something is going wrong instead of revising the incentives, or, better, removing any incentives.
The value of incentives can't be better than the person who decided it. Thinking someone is so smart, and even if it were depending on such person, is a dangerous premise to have for a durable system.

[twiifm]

Sorry I should have wrote 80s.  Friedman was economic advisor to Reagan.   That generation was when deregulation started.   

Fannie Mae doesn't subsidize mortgages.   They securitize them to expand secondary mortgage markets.  But I agree that securitization contributed to housing bubble.  I also agree that lower interest rates increased incentives for loans.

However,  I also believe deregulation played a big part in the bubbles as well.   

You realize what you described is called subprime lending and that is partly result of deregulation.   Deregulation of finance let the banks create CDO & CDS from the MBS

So assuming individuals/ companies are only self interested.   Is the market self regulating or should regulations come from govt?  What is the role of govt?   Or are you anarchist?

How does bitcoin limit greed?   All I see are greedy speculators buying bitcoin to get rich quick 

[TaunSew]

Deregulating banking rules =/= deregulation or free market.

If you go to the park in a major city and try to sell lemonade - I'll give you two hours tops until the cops show up and slap you with a $500 fine for selling without a permit - got to sell a lot of lemonade just to break even.  

All the regulations in societies means that the only people who can compete are those with capital.  The permit costs alone, if you can get a permit, is going to disincentive small entrepreneurs.  

Ironically products like Coca Colathrived in a time when there were less permits and simply less rules all around.  Today something like Coca Cola would never be allowed because it originally used to contain cocaine and that's how it got people hooked.

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

So assuming individuals/ companies are only self interested.   Is the market self regulating or should regulations come from govt?  What is the role of govt?   Or are you anarchist?

Because companies are self-interested and always trying to maximize profit (usually above all else), they do not self-regulate well in most cases.  This is especially true when short-term results are emphasized over long term and/or the people making the decisions benefit from short-term successes and don't suffer the consequences of poor decisions.  Ideally, financial institutions would look at the risks they take with the idea that too much risk could cause the company to fail, and that that's something that should be avoided at all costs.  But the people running those financial institutions get paid well to take too much risk because it usually pays off well in the short term.  And then when the whole thing comes crashing down, they leave with "golden parachute" plans that guarantee that they'll get paid well, even if they drove the company into the ground.  So there's no way you can let companies regulate themselves.  They have to be regulated.  The government would probably do a better job regulating them if it weren't filled with people that are all buddies of those in charge of the companies.

[ApexEvo]

I see world of technology where almost everything is decided by software and produced by hardware, biggest class of people would be called "free people" as they will be jobless, got their money from governmets - they will have to work together with owners of hardware (producers). And jobless people paying those money back to the system for products, so HW can be run and upgraded. Technology will have strong ipact imho.

[Nicolas Dorier]

So assuming individuals/ companies are only self interested.   Is the market self regulating or should regulations come from govt?  What is the role of govt?   Or are you anarchist?

I am not anarchist, because I recognize private property and I believe the goal of government should be limited to one and only one thing : The monopoly of coercion in order to enforce property rights of its citizens.
Except than that, they should get off the way of the market.
What do you mean by "self regulation" ?
If you mean that the market will, by itself, route the money to the hand of the smartest company, to the best product, to the best judgement, then yes, it is self regulated.
Bad short term behavior makes money flee on the long term.
If you mean that the market will, by itself, route the money evenly to all people regardless of their productivity and work, then no, it is not.

How does bitcoin limit greed?   All I see are greedy speculators buying bitcoin to get rich quick  

I don't want bitcoin to limit greed. And, like I said, I don't think self interest and greediness requires a fix. This is human nature and should be acknowledged as such.
What I say is that Bitcoin use this greed to self sustain itself. No central body is obliged to take money by coercion from tax payer pocket to get Bitcoin running. Bitcoin works by voluntary association, not coercion.
Bitcoin is an incentive system that is using human nature for its own survival, not against its survival.
The only assumption of Bitcoin is that people act selfishly. If it was not the case, there would be no miners and Bitcoin nailed into a coffin.

And yes, there is lots of speculation on Bitcoin, but it is failing to see the potential of services and business idea that can be developed thanks to it.
Bitcoin is the only store of value equivalent to gold by its properties, entirely digital and easier to protect. The bonus is that you know, contrary to gold, that the discovery of a new mine or new method of mining and refining of Bitcoin that would decrease its value is impossible.
I believe my money is safer in the long term in Bitcoin than in a bank account that can get seized, inflated or bankrupt. (cyprus bank)
And I think that, surely enough, most of bitcoin user are speculator, but people and businesses will realize very soon that it is more than a that.

But the people running those financial institutions get paid well to take too much risk because it usually pays off well in the short term.  And then when the whole thing comes crashing down, they leave with "golden parachute" plans that guarantee that they'll get paid well, even if they drove the company into the ground

So true, and politician are like that also they tend to favor short term decision, but, the paradox is that the voters, and the stockholders only see short term impact.
Acting against this fact is self destructive for politicians and executives that depend on the approval of short sighted people, so I won't blame them for that.

They have to be regulated.  The government would probably do a better job regulating them if it weren't filled with people that are all buddies of those in charge of the companies.

This is where I disagree.
If such incentives as short term profit preferences and golden parachute is hurting banks, its stockholders on the long term, or even depositors, then the money will flow out of the bank by itself.
No need to prevent that by coercion or regulation. Bad long term policies will make the money flows somewhere else on the long term.
Bitcoin is already an economical response of people that does not trust money to banks and financial institution for the long term.
If you despise banks and financial institution for the shortsightness, then you can vote by storing your wealth in Bitcoin.

Moreover, government is also shortsighted because they depends on short term elections of their voters. Their decision would change nothing, except than adding some incompetence to the mix.
A king would act for its country in a longer term than a government. I am not monarchist, but this is simple application of how incentives leverage the self interest of individuals.

I see world of technology where almost everything is decided by software and produced by hardware, biggest class of people would be called "free people" as they will be jobless, got their money from governmets - they will have to work together with owners of hardware (producers). And jobless people paying those money back to the system for products, so HW can be run and upgraded. Technology will have strong ipact imho.

I hope that we will not become is such society that is nothing more than a planned economy, the ideal of the communist society, that would flood the world of people not able to stand by themselves and produce nothing because they would not need for their existence (against self interest).
It would not produce wealth but misery. Money has to come from productivity, works, judgement and trade, not by right, or its meaning is eroded.

This is a quote from Atlas Shrugged, "So money is the root of all evil" from the character Francisco D'Aconia.

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

But Milton Friedman dreamed about a system which calculate the monetarist policy automatically and openly in place of the fed. (at 52:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOO4kPSaD4Y )
But this is not equivalent to money coming from the sky thanks to government at the price of the productive.

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

So assuming individuals/ companies are only self interested.   Is the market self regulating or should regulations come from govt?  What is the role of govt?   Or are you anarchist?

I am not anarchist, because I recognize private property and I believe the goal of government should be limited to one and only one thing : The monopoly of coercion in order to enforce property rights of its citizens.
Except than that, they should get off the way of the market.

Then who's going to build and maintain things like roads and bridges?  Or create and enforce building codes?  Or create and enforce laws that control pollution?

What do you mean by "self regulation" ?
If you mean that the market will, by itself, route the money to the hand of the smartest company, to the best product, to the best judgement, then yes, it is self regulated.

Do you really believe that if companies were completely free to do whatever they want that the best companies, products, judgement, etc. would be the winners?  That wouldn't be true at all.  The winners would be the biggest cheaters, bullies, seducers, etc.  If you were to take away all regulation, companies would do nothing but play dirty, and all the rich would take away any wealth that the middle class and poor have left.

Bad short term behavior makes money flee on the long term.

This may generally be true, but there are a lot of people that run companies and financial institutions that don't care if their firm crashes and burns tomorrow, as long as they can make a lot of money today.

[michaelwang33]

"Socialism or Capitalism?"

Not a lot of difference between the two in reality. Both rife with corruption and greed. Money is always funnelled to the already rich and powerful in both cases. The poor stay poor.

There is a huge difference between socialism and capitalism. With capitalism you have opportunities to climb the economic ladder if you are smart and work hard. With capitalism everyone has a fair chance to succeed. With socialism everyone gets the same amount of resources (money) regardless of how much/hard you work.

[giantdragon]

With capitalism you have opportunities to climb the economic ladder if you are smart and work hard.

I am wondering, why still exist so naive believers in corporate propaganda!

[Connor936]

With capitalism you have opportunities to climb the economic ladder if you are smart and work hard.

I am wondering, why still exist so naive believers in corporate propaganda!

I have personally climbed the economic ladder. My family was poor when I was growing up, and there were some days when I was unable to eat. I was able to graduate high school with a 3.9 GPA, get a full scholarship to college, get a scholarship to grad school, worked my way up the corporate ladder and am now making over 6 figures at a major technology firm.

[TaunSew]

With capitalism you have opportunities to climb the economic ladder if you are smart and work hard.

I am wondering, why still exist so naive believers in corporate propaganda!

I have personally climbed the economic ladder. My family was poor when I was growing up, and there were some days when I was unable to eat. I was able to graduate high school with a 3.9 GPA, get a full scholarship to college, get a scholarship to grad school, worked my way up the corporate ladder and am now making over 6 figures at a major technology firm.

Fast forward to age 65 - still making the same salary with four kids, no corporate pension and coming to the stark realization that you don't even get a corporate pension and have to work past retirement age..  no savings as you spent all your money on the mortgage for your McMansion.  Then at age 70 they terminate you for being too old and a liability.  You end up where you began.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/09/25/retirement-never-comes