5 ms·

The idea that the difference between people with capital and without is one of preference seems rather bizarre.

• grondilu 10y ago
  Some people prefer cash to share holdings. It is, by all means, a preference.
  • naravara 10y ago
    Some people would prefer holdings in lieu of cash, but prefer being able to eat and pay rent in lieu of holdings so they wind up taking the cash. That too is, technically, a preference but let's not pretend all "preferences" have no more weight or societal implication than what flavor of ice-cream we like.
    • grondilu 10y ago
      You seem to believe that people don't own capital because they are poor or something. It is certainly true that poor people don't own capital, but it is also probably true that a lot of people who are not poor do not own capital either. For instance, I suppose that socialistic-minded people don't, and yet I doubt they are all poor. In any case, the preference I was talking about was excluding wealth considerations. All other things being equal, the tendency to hoard capital is, I believe, part of character.
      • vertex-four 10y ago
        To be honest, everyone I know who can afford to own capital does, in some form or another. The alternative is an inability to retire.
        • grondilu 10y ago
          > in some form or another. Well, I may have made the mistake of using the word capital to refer to shares of companies. I admit the term is more generic and even cash can be seen as capital. Still, this thread started about the idea of giving shares to a category of person. So my point remains : ownership is a dynamic concept. Even if you give those shares to people you think should own them, what makes you think they will keep them and not sell them?
• swalsh 10y ago
  OP could have been a bit more subtle with his statement. Obviously some people have an easier time than others accumulating capital. If you're working at a minimum wage job (or 2) you may not have any "extra" capital to accumulate. In those cases, it's not really a preference. On the other hand, many people DO have some amount left over after their basic living expenses. People have options with this. They have "preferences". They could spend it on a "luxurious" lifestyle, expensive bars, updated wardrobes, expensive cars, houses larger than they need. Etc. Many "rich" people (even middle class people) have a preference for living below their means, and allowing the capital to accumulate. My father was a post office worker, the government took care of him for sure, but he never made more than $20/hr. Today his retirement account has over a million dollars in it. Growing up we never owned a car, we rarely eat out, and we lived in a very cheap house, in a very cheap neighborhood. I resented him for it many times, not having a car is very difficult in the suburbs of the Midwest. Our cheap house was in a shitty school district. But it was his "preference". He could have saved less, and spent the money on a better house in a better school district. He chose to accumulate capital instead.
  • inimino 10y ago
    Or he could have been born into money, used the family's capital wisely to accumulate more capital while living in the best school district and leaving a lot more than that for retirement. Nothing wrong with that, but not everyone had the "preference" or "foresight" to choose their parents so carefully. What OP missed is not subtlety but a basic grasp of how the deck is stacked for most human beings living today.
• anigbrowl 10y ago
  Haven't you heard? Real life is just like a monopoly game where everyone starts out equal and those who end up poor do so as a result of their own flawed decision-making. It's totally fair. At least, so people would have you believe.