Yes, being poor or even simply growing up poor can contribute to keeping you poor by restricting your lifestyle choices.

And I don't know how many times we can repeat that we're talking about averages here - the prospectives of *most* poorer kids versus the prospectives of *most* wealthy kids. We are well-aware that with a combination of skills, education, a more-than-average natural inclination to overcome difficulties, good health, quite a bit of luck, etc, some poor kids are able to do something with themselves. Depends on the area they're living too.

There's no reason to keep bringing it up, nobody said "all kids born poor will die poor". We're saying that, in general, kids born in poor families have signficantly less changes of "making it" than kids born in more wealthy families(or even countries). It's statistics of big numbers. Exceptions to the rule exist. We're a programmers forum's for crying out loud, I think we all understand patterns, and that something does not have to be black-or-white in order to follow a general trend. I really think some people here understand perfectly that we're talking about general patterns and trends that always have exceptions, and that a 1-in-20 counterexample isn't strong evidence that those trends don't exist, but they do it anyway.

My point is, the fact that some people have *too much* (so much that they can afford toys that spray *champagne* - which also costs money each time it's "refueled" and sprayed for *no reason at all* other than to demonstrate how wealthy you are, conquestor3, right? It's not like it's only the gun's price that's at play here) and some people have *too little* is interconnected. I thought it was clear. The "champagne gun" was just a tiny example of the myriads I can think of, of the excess the "high society" indulges itself into, while millions others suffer.

It's just entertainment though... Even in the stricted communist countries there are forms of frivolous entertainment that costs resources. We aren't trying to optimize for resources down to 99.99% effectiveness. If we were, there are bigger problems than party toys.

You want me to mention private jets instead of "champagne gun"? I'll mention private jets("but there's nothing wrong with that! They earned it!").

What's wrong with Private jets/Private cars? Some people need to travel a lot, and it makes sense to have a personal jet.

I'll mention huge mansions that no family could possibly have a need for unless it's a 200-member family("but there's nothing wrong with that! They earned it!").

These are mostly bought as an investment, what's the problem with that? My girlfriend and myself live in a 4 bedroom house, does that mean we commited some sin?

I'll mention private islands("But there's nothing wrong with that! They earned it!".).

Same thing as above.

I'll mention developed countries exploiting poorer countries for their resources, material and human ("But there's nothing wrong with that! At least the poor countries are getting something in return and the labouring children are making some money! United Fruit Company really does some good in South America!")

These are seperate issues. Capitalism improves quality of life when it brings in low-skill jobs to other countries, however, what the United Fruit Company did is a way different scenario, where they tried to force their workers into the same low-quality wages after competition was increasing the value. In a sense, they were going against the free market in an extremely illegal way. That's something I consider extremely immoral, and a reason why I don't buy Chiquitta's products.

What productive, valuable work did the lazy bum do to deserve that wealth, other than be born to the right parents?

That's where I think you're looking at it the wrong why. I see it as "Why should the person who earned the money not be able to dictate who it goes to when he passes away?"

That's where I think you're looking at it the wrong why. I see it as "Why should the person who earned the money not be able to dictate who it goes to when he passes away?"

He's looking it at a practical and rational way : How existing wealth can be used more effectively and for the benefit of the whole and not the few.

You're looking at it in an almost "metaphysical" way and asking questions like "is it right? is it wrong? is it a sin"?. According to you, he has the "right"(given by whom? derived from where?) to amass great wealth and also has the "right"(given by whom? derived from where?) to dictate how it will be used, even if it's used in an ineffective way.

Who exactly guarantees these "rights"? Where do they come from? God? Nature? Man? By what standard exactly does he have those "rights" in the first place? Who gives men the "right" to own land, for example? Land was there for billions of years before man even came into existence. How can one own a private island? Did he bought it from its "Creator" or something?

A rational approach would say that men can't *own* land, but need it anyway, for housing, for farming, for resources, and we should distribute it and its resources rationally and fairly based on each one's needs and for the common good(obviously even in such a system there will be disputes, and many times severe ones, about the methods of the distribution and what constitutes "common good" - but we have democracy for that, we're not going to give it up).

But by what logic exactly can an individual *own* a large property, along with its resources, like the valuable minerals and compressed and liquified dead dinosaurs beneath it? Did he shit out the minerals? Did he gave birth to the dinosaurs? I say no individual has no such right, because it is derived from absolutely nowhere. There is no action an individual can perform that gives them the right to own something when they played no part in its creation. Yet...here we are, aren't we? And all property eventually traces back to land property. So, where is that "right" derived from, exactly? It can't be God, you didn't get your land titles from Him. It can't be Nature, you didn't get them from Her either. If it's Man...well, Man's laws change, don't they? And if their change results in more effective management of resources that benefits more people, why shouldn't they change?

He's looking it at a practical and rational way : How wealth can be used more effectively and for the benefit of the whole.

Why should someone's earned wealth need to be used optimally?

Who exactly guarantees these "rights"? God? Nature? Man? By what standard exactly does he have those "rights" in the first place? Who gives men the "right" to own land, for example? Land was there for billions of years before man even came into existence, by what logic can an individual *own* it? Where is that "right" derived from, exactly?

Society in capitalist countries. The rights are backed by force (police/courts).

That's where I think you're looking at it the wrong why. I see it as "Why should the person who earned the money not be able to dictate who it goes to when he passes away?"

Well to take a slightly different tact, if I take the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" to its limit, then no he doesn't get to. While he's alive, he can spend all the money he wants. But once he dies, that money goes to whatever property taxes, upcoming, or past debts he/she has and then the rest goes to the state. The kids have to make their own way.

Who exactly guarantees these "rights"? God? Nature? Man? By what standard exactly does he have those "rights" in the first place? Who gives men the "right" to own land, for example? Land was there for billions of years before man even came into existence, by what logic can an individual *own* it? Where is that "right" derived from, exactly?

Society in capitalist countries. The rights are backed by force (police/courts).

Precisely. So nothing more than temporary man-made and man-enforced laws that can change, and did in fact came into being by overriding other man-made laws. No reason to ask "why shouldn't he have the right to do X" then. There is no "why". That question kind of implies this "right" is derived from some "higher" universal authority, or principle, and that laws that would go against that principle would be incorrect/unjust. No such higher authority or principle exists, so all that remains is human society organizing itself by laws as it sees fit.

We are well aware that he has that right, for the time being, in our societies. Societies(and times) change. You can't ask "why shouldn't I have that right in your preferred society", because you'll get the same answer you just gave me. You can't have that right because my preferred society doesn't give you that right, and doesn't back that right by force, if I may borrow your excellent phrasing. Nothing more, nothing else. No abstract "why"s, as if there was some higher moral authority or principle that man-made laws must weigh themselves against.

mikeman, no offense, but you really are starting to sound as if you have something against people treating themselves to stuff if they have the money for it. You and only you claim that it's somehow wrong because there are other people suffering. I agree with conquestor3, it sounds like you want to ban entertainment altogether.


You can find examples all day of rich folk who do nothing to earn their money and I can find examples all day of rich folk who do really productive work that not everyone can do to earn money. You cannot and should not characterize all rich people as having too much or being bad people based on just a few people in that population. There's poor people who steal as well. There's poor people who are lazy. This pretty much goes for any group of people out there.

Now I agree that with the changing times class mobility is becoming an issue mainly because many jobs are starting to go away to robots or software. That I think can be solved with a basic income type thing. In my opinion, we are going to a society where most people will still do work but more for the sake of doing things or research or art or high level aspects of production rather than workers building things. Capitalism won't disappear per se, it'll just look different.

mikeman, no offense, but you really are starting to sound as if you have something against people treating themselves to stuff if they have the money for it. You and only you claim that it's somehow wrong because there are other people suffering. I agree with conquestor3, it sounds like you want to ban entertainment altogether.

Ugh, this is so what I'm not saying. "Ban entertainment"? Seriously? I'm a videogame developer! I'm simply arguing from the perspective of a socialist, that's all. This is a thread called "the problem with capitalism", right? :P

I mean, I pointed out a minor example of excessive decadence of rich kids partying(don't tell me spraying champagne is not such an example and it's just "fun"; the "guns" are not for drinking it; its only purpose is to show how much money you've got to waste; you might as well take out 100-dollar bills and burn them and call it "fun") just to drive my point home, and you guys got "you want to ban enternainment" from that? Geez! Did I phrase it *that* wrong? I don't think so!

But again, we come to the same point of "people treating themselves to stuff if they have the money for it". Depends on what "stuff". Socialists don't believe any one individual shouldn't be able to hold large private property(not personal property, like your house, your car, your HDTV, your XBox, your movie and CD collection). So, yes, of course I'm not for "banning entertainment" if by entertainment we mean books, music, films, theatre, videogames, having fun with friends. What the hell! Now, if the "things they treat themselves with" are huge mansions, private islands and private jets, yes, I'm for banning those; that is, organize society in such a way so nobody is permitted to own such big property, for the sole reason that it can be put to much better use than one(or few) person's indulgences.

Geez, I pointed out a minor example of excessive decadence of rich kids partying just to drive my point home, and you guys got "you want to ban enternainment" from that?

To be fair, you compare a minor example with Flint, Michigan. Apples and bricks, lol. Flint was more about greed and treating people like shit than decadence.

Well to take a slightly different tact, if I take the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" to its limit, then no he doesn't get to. While he's alive, he can spend all the money he wants. But once he dies, that money goes to whatever property taxes, upcoming, or past debts he/she has and then the rest goes to the state. The kids have to make their own way.

If we were talking about an economic theory model that would be the case for a fascist government, as companies/anything of value really would go to the government within 80 years.

The thing is, the government is attrocious at spending money well.

We are well aware that he has that right, for the time being, in our societies. Societies(and times) change. You can't ask "why shouldn't I have that right in your preferred society", because you'll get the same answer you just gave me. You can't have that right because my preferred society doesn't give you that right, and doesn't back that right by force, if I may borrow your excellent phrasing. Nothing more, nothing else. No abstract "why"s, as if there was some higher moral authority or principle that man-made laws must weigh themselves against.

So in your ideal government the power (money) belongs fully to the state. But then when a corrupt leader gets into power, he shapes it like North Korea.

The thing about capitalism is that "greed is good". Greed can help promote economic growth, and drive investments. Greed is actually favorable to capitalism. As greed's a somewhat base emotion in many people, this means that greed keeps capitalism running well.

Greed (A base emotion) in socialism/communism can cause the entire thing to collapse.

Now I agree that with the changing times class mobility is becoming an issue mainly because many jobs are starting to go away to robots or software. That I think can be solved with a basic income type thing. In my opinion, we are going to a society where most people will still do work but more for the sake of doing things or research or art or high level aspects of production rather than workers building things. Capitalism won't disappear per se, it'll just look different.

More so than universal basic income, tariffs need to be in place. Let's say the USA demands 30% tax for their UBI. Sudan has .2% tax rate... Businesses will jump to Sudan and simply export to the USA.