4 ms·

The market is free only for those who have earned or inherited FU money. No one else can actually compete in any meaningful way in the free market, they might g

by devoply 10y ago

The market is free only for those who have earned or inherited FU money. No one else can actually compete in any meaningful way in the free market, they might get lucky now and then but over time that's become nearly impossible similar to winning a lottery ticket, as anyone without money is competing against people with money or their lackeys. And with that same money they can buy preferential treatment when their bad bets blow up... which is paid for by the masses, but controlled by people who they can buy or at least coerce due mostly to wealth.

nickik 10y ago
So how does society get richer? Is everything only because of government? Or some other thing? All those poor immigrants that came to the US, when the US had 2% of GDP in Federal government spending, did they all stay poor? There is a discussion about poor people and opportunity, but your statement is just plain false. Its false both empirically and theoretically.
- devoply 10y ago
  No when enough wealth is created at the top, the people at the top want to generate yet more wealth as appetite for wealth is never satisfied, so they trickle down some of that wealth mostly as a means to create more wealth for themselves, which pushes the standards of living up. They create schools and educate the masses, to train them as employees that can do more complicated things so that they can sell those things to other people for more profit. Competition between the rich is what pushes everyone up.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Poe's Law strikes again.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    This sounds border-line conspiracy-theory-ish, but think about this the next time you hear wealthy or powerful people talking about how to improve education. They might not talk about how education opens your mind, expands your horizons, liberates you from poverty, etc. (some do, and those people are awesome). They may instead talk about educating people to prepare them for specific jobs. That sounds great as a direct impact of education, but that's a hint that they're really looking for publicly-subsidized training of their future employees so they can get away with not providing the training or necessary financial incentives themselves.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - nickik 10y ago
    There is so much wrong in so few sentences that I literally unable to untangle it. Further discussion seems pretty useless in this case. I hope you will find some good economics books that can get you out of this tangle.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  He specifically said "earned or inherited"! It's certainly still possible to acquire FU money (about $1-$5 million depending on your standards of living and your investment risk tolerance) through an ordinary career -- although it's never been easy. Also, and more respectfully, look at the effect of capital accumulation on wages. When productive capital (hint: not housing stock) increases, wages rise.

by devoply 10y ago

nickik 10y ago

So how does society get richer? Is everything only because of government? Or some other thing? All those poor immigrants that came to the US, when the US had 2% of GDP in Federal government spending, did they all stay poor? There is a discussion about poor people and opportunity, but your statement is just plain false. Its false both empirically and theoretically.

devoply 10y ago
No when enough wealth is created at the top, the people at the top want to generate yet more wealth as appetite for wealth is never satisfied, so they trickle down some of that wealth mostly as a means to create more wealth for themselves, which pushes the standards of living up. They create schools and educate the masses, to train them as employees that can do more complicated things so that they can sell those things to other people for more profit. Competition between the rich is what pushes everyone up.
- vacri 10y ago
  Poe's Law strikes again.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  This sounds border-line conspiracy-theory-ish, but think about this the next time you hear wealthy or powerful people talking about how to improve education. They might not talk about how education opens your mind, expands your horizons, liberates you from poverty, etc. (some do, and those people are awesome). They may instead talk about educating people to prepare them for specific jobs. That sounds great as a direct impact of education, but that's a hint that they're really looking for publicly-subsidized training of their future employees so they can get away with not providing the training or necessary financial incentives themselves.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- nickik 10y ago
  There is so much wrong in so few sentences that I literally unable to untangle it. Further discussion seems pretty useless in this case. I hope you will find some good economics books that can get you out of this tangle.
clock_tower 10y ago
He specifically said "earned or inherited"! It's certainly still possible to acquire FU money (about $1-$5 million depending on your standards of living and your investment risk tolerance) through an ordinary career -- although it's never been easy. Also, and more respectfully, look at the effect of capital accumulation on wages. When productive capital (hint: not housing stock) increases, wages rise.