5 ms·

Afaik his finding are disputed. And even if not, why should it even be desirable to encourage labor? If capital is so great, people should seek owning capital,

Afaik his finding are disputed. And even if not, why should it even be desirable to encourage labor? If capital is so great, people should seek owning capital, not seek to work more. As they say, savings plans start at 50$/month. It seems rather great that this opportunity exists (assuming it is true). The alternative is that you have to work and work until you die.

SamBam 7y ago
"Why doesn't everyone just get rich?"
- logicchains 7y ago
  Because a good chunk of people suck at delayed gratification so are incapable of saving money. Even on an average income it's not unfeasible to retire a millionaire if saving a significant percent (and indeed there are people who do this, small businesspeople and tradespeople, the "millionaires next door").
  - anoncake 7y ago
    When people are incapable of something, it isn't feasible for them. It doesn't really matter why "everyone getting rich" doesn't work.
- pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
  Arguably, almost everybody in the Western world has gotten rich. Go visit a medieval castle sometime. The standards that now everybody has required an army of servants in the old days. It is just a hateful lie of the left to claim "being rich" is dependent on exploiting poor people.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    That's silly - compared to cavemen, even workers in third world countries are "rich", being able to trade things for goods and services and not being required to hunt and gather. Inequality solved?
    - kofejnik 7y ago
      yes, exactly; to have equality, you'll have to reduce everyone to the lower common denominator, which will be rather low Also, I don't see why exactly inequality is inherently bad. I'm poorer than Bezos, _and that is a good thing_. Pretty much like Steph Curry is better than me at basketball and so he should have a lot more ball possesion should we be playing on the same team, Bezos is much better than me in allocating resources, so he should have a lot more resources to play with.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        > Bezos is much better than me in allocating resources, so he should have a lot more resources to play with. How do you know that, though? Have you had the opportunity to be in the exact same place he was for the exact same time? Do you sincerely believe there aren't, in the billions of people on earth, someone with better resource allocation skills than Bezos? Having more money is not proof of ability.
        pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
        We know that because he did it. He literally proved it by becoming a Billionaire. Yes, lots of people were alive in the exact same time when he started Amazon.
        SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        How is that proof of ability more than luck?
        pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
        He has been going at it consistently for many, many years now. He just happened to be lucky year after year? Most people don't even try, but it doesn't stop them from accusing people who put in the work and who take the risks from just being lucky.
  - simoom22 7y ago
    Are you saying poor people aren't exploited?
    - kofejnik 7y ago
      not the parent's OP, but yes; I'm saying the whole notion of exploitation is rather silly
      - simoom22 7y ago
        We'll, I guess all notions can seem silly from some perspective. Children climbing up chimneys or adults wearing diapers to meet chicken plucking quotas can seen silly from a certain perspective, but usually not a first person one.
    - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
      Presumably there are people who are being exploited in the world. But to claim in general poverty is a result of exploitation seems very questionable. Start with basics. People live in the woods, with nothing. Some start building a hut from sticks, others don't. The ones living in huts suddenly are richer than the ones who don't, even though they haven't taken anything away from the ones who don't have huts. And of the ones who don't have huts demand some of the huts from the people who built them, who is doing the exploiting?
      - bigger_cheese 7y ago
        People in huts eventually band together into villages, villages start to trade goods with one another. Eventually the largest village is able to coerce (either using the threat of force via superior military or through infiltration, bribery subversion etc) the smaller villages into giving it the best deals. The largest village gets very rich while extracting all the resources and goods from the smaller villages around it. The largest village is able to ram through treaties, trade pacts etc that favor it's interests, it is able to interfere in politics of surrounding villages and sometimes provides backing to despots or outright overthrow leadership of smaller villages that might be doing something the largest village does not agree with.
dls2016 7y ago
What the hell use is capital without labor?
- pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
  A roof over you head can be very useful in the rain.
- nybble41 7y ago
  What use is labor without capital? Labor needs tools to be productive.

SamBam 7y ago

"Why doesn't everyone just get rich?"

logicchains 7y ago
Because a good chunk of people suck at delayed gratification so are incapable of saving money. Even on an average income it's not unfeasible to retire a millionaire if saving a significant percent (and indeed there are people who do this, small businesspeople and tradespeople, the "millionaires next door").
- anoncake 7y ago
  When people are incapable of something, it isn't feasible for them. It doesn't really matter why "everyone getting rich" doesn't work.
pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
Arguably, almost everybody in the Western world has gotten rich. Go visit a medieval castle sometime. The standards that now everybody has required an army of servants in the old days. It is just a hateful lie of the left to claim "being rich" is dependent on exploiting poor people.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  That's silly - compared to cavemen, even workers in third world countries are "rich", being able to trade things for goods and services and not being required to hunt and gather. Inequality solved?
  - kofejnik 7y ago
    yes, exactly; to have equality, you'll have to reduce everyone to the lower common denominator, which will be rather low Also, I don't see why exactly inequality is inherently bad. I'm poorer than Bezos, _and that is a good thing_. Pretty much like Steph Curry is better than me at basketball and so he should have a lot more ball possesion should we be playing on the same team, Bezos is much better than me in allocating resources, so he should have a lot more resources to play with.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      > Bezos is much better than me in allocating resources, so he should have a lot more resources to play with. How do you know that, though? Have you had the opportunity to be in the exact same place he was for the exact same time? Do you sincerely believe there aren't, in the billions of people on earth, someone with better resource allocation skills than Bezos? Having more money is not proof of ability.
      - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
        We know that because he did it. He literally proved it by becoming a Billionaire. Yes, lots of people were alive in the exact same time when he started Amazon.
        SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        How is that proof of ability more than luck?
        pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
        He has been going at it consistently for many, many years now. He just happened to be lucky year after year? Most people don't even try, but it doesn't stop them from accusing people who put in the work and who take the risks from just being lucky.
- simoom22 7y ago
  Are you saying poor people aren't exploited?
  - kofejnik 7y ago
    not the parent's OP, but yes; I'm saying the whole notion of exploitation is rather silly
    - simoom22 7y ago
      We'll, I guess all notions can seem silly from some perspective. Children climbing up chimneys or adults wearing diapers to meet chicken plucking quotas can seen silly from a certain perspective, but usually not a first person one.
  - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
    Presumably there are people who are being exploited in the world. But to claim in general poverty is a result of exploitation seems very questionable. Start with basics. People live in the woods, with nothing. Some start building a hut from sticks, others don't. The ones living in huts suddenly are richer than the ones who don't, even though they haven't taken anything away from the ones who don't have huts. And of the ones who don't have huts demand some of the huts from the people who built them, who is doing the exploiting?
    - bigger_cheese 7y ago
      People in huts eventually band together into villages, villages start to trade goods with one another. Eventually the largest village is able to coerce (either using the threat of force via superior military or through infiltration, bribery subversion etc) the smaller villages into giving it the best deals. The largest village gets very rich while extracting all the resources and goods from the smaller villages around it. The largest village is able to ram through treaties, trade pacts etc that favor it's interests, it is able to interfere in politics of surrounding villages and sometimes provides backing to despots or outright overthrow leadership of smaller villages that might be doing something the largest village does not agree with.

dls2016 7y ago

What the hell use is capital without labor?

pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
A roof over you head can be very useful in the rain.
nybble41 7y ago
What use is labor without capital? Labor needs tools to be productive.