7 ms·

"Denmark’s economic philosophy seems to be that the market is an unfortunate socioeconomic lottery system" Exactly this. People born to wealthy families have l

"Denmark’s economic philosophy seems to be that the market is an unfortunate socioeconomic lottery system" Exactly this. People born to wealthy families have literally won the socioeconomic lottery without trying.

dnautics 10y ago
Why is this limited to wealth? Why don't we consider that adeptness at accessing government benefits is a socioeconomic lottery system? As in, those who are particularly capable of extracting resources from public sources teach their children how to do this. I'm not referring to welfare, but rather, stimulus packages, bailouts, SBIRs, business development tax incentives, low interest goverment loans, etc.
- woodpanel 10y ago
  Exactly. As for welfare: "adedptness at accessing" is what is also driving inequality within the group of welfare-recipients. While the college grad, that can't find a job has a rather easy time figuring out what forms to fill out how, the typical poor kid coming from a family of consecutive generational poorness, won't even know about the majority of services he could get from the government. It's why I find welfare-reactionaries (people who oppose welfare reform) often to be subconsciously devious: They oppose reforms that would simplify welfare, even if it means more money for those who are poorer than themselves.
thisisbad 10y ago
Good looking, tall people have literally won the genetic lottery without trying. Look at inheritance as a payment for providing happiness and support. If a wealthy man has a wife that makes him happy and supports him, then why would it be a problem if he leaves her 50% of his wealth? Children, especially your own, are a great source of happiness and motivation. Some people work mainly to leave wealth to their children and other family members - it's their main motivation. I don't understand people who have problems with other people giving their money to those they love (children, spouse, relatives, friends etc.). It's kinda funny - people who are for forced redistribution at a gunpoint, want to give people money just for existing. But, if someone wants to give their own children money for existing and making them happy, then it's a problem.
- pjc50 10y ago
  There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions. Especially if that means the inheritor refuses to acknowledge that not everyone has it that easy. It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving. Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages.
  - mac01021 10y ago
    Inheriting a modest family farm can also make it hard for you to acknowledge that not everyone has it that easy.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, other than some sort of salami-slicing of easiness? (Ironically a small farm is one of the harder things to inherit, especially if you feel morally obliged to keep it running as a business)
  - thisisbad 10y ago
    There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions. What difference? Inheritance = payment for providing happiness and support in life. The amount can be whatever you want - millions, billions or nothing at all. If someone has a business worth millions and decides to leave it to his wife or children, then that would be a financial compensation for making his life better. It's up to them to decide what to do with the money they've made. It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving. Who is objecting to other people receiving money from someone who wants to give it to them voluntarily? It's crazy what envy does to people. Beautiful people receive more positive attention and get compliments all the time. Should they mutilate themselves, so they don't receive attention anymore? Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages. So what? Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people? There are ugly people, which doesn't mean beautiful people should mutilate themselves and make previously ugly people look better in comparison.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dnautics 10y ago

Why is this limited to wealth? Why don't we consider that adeptness at accessing government benefits is a socioeconomic lottery system? As in, those who are particularly capable of extracting resources from public sources teach their children how to do this. I'm not referring to welfare, but rather, stimulus packages, bailouts, SBIRs, business development tax incentives, low interest goverment loans, etc.

woodpanel 10y ago
Exactly. As for welfare: "adedptness at accessing" is what is also driving inequality within the group of welfare-recipients. While the college grad, that can't find a job has a rather easy time figuring out what forms to fill out how, the typical poor kid coming from a family of consecutive generational poorness, won't even know about the majority of services he could get from the government. It's why I find welfare-reactionaries (people who oppose welfare reform) often to be subconsciously devious: They oppose reforms that would simplify welfare, even if it means more money for those who are poorer than themselves.

thisisbad 10y ago

Good looking, tall people have literally won the genetic lottery without trying. Look at inheritance as a payment for providing happiness and support. If a wealthy man has a wife that makes him happy and supports him, then why would it be a problem if he leaves her 50% of his wealth? Children, especially your own, are a great source of happiness and motivation. Some people work mainly to leave wealth to their children and other family members - it's their main motivation. I don't understand people who have problems with other people giving their money to those they love (children, spouse, relatives, friends etc.). It's kinda funny - people who are for forced redistribution at a gunpoint, want to give people money just for existing. But, if someone wants to give their own children money for existing and making them happy, then it's a problem.

pjc50 10y ago
There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions. Especially if that means the inheritor refuses to acknowledge that not everyone has it that easy. It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving. Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages.
- mac01021 10y ago
  Inheriting a modest family farm can also make it hard for you to acknowledge that not everyone has it that easy.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, other than some sort of salami-slicing of easiness? (Ironically a small farm is one of the harder things to inherit, especially if you feel morally obliged to keep it running as a business)
- thisisbad 10y ago
  There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions. What difference? Inheritance = payment for providing happiness and support in life. The amount can be whatever you want - millions, billions or nothing at all. If someone has a business worth millions and decides to leave it to his wife or children, then that would be a financial compensation for making his life better. It's up to them to decide what to do with the money they've made. It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving. Who is objecting to other people receiving money from someone who wants to give it to them voluntarily? It's crazy what envy does to people. Beautiful people receive more positive attention and get compliments all the time. Should they mutilate themselves, so they don't receive attention anymore? Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages. So what? Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people? There are ugly people, which doesn't mean beautiful people should mutilate themselves and make previously ugly people look better in comparison.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]