3 ms·

An economics teacher, when aggressively asked to prove why capitalism is the better system by his left-leaning students tells them: "At the end of this year I

by nickpp 5y ago

An economics teacher, when aggressively asked to prove why capitalism is the better system by his left-leaning students tells them: "At the end of this year I will grade each student individual performance in private but officially you will all receive the same grade, the average of the entire class grades instead, so it is fair for everybody." They loved it. At the end of the year some work got A grades, some B and some F. But on the average they all received a very honorable B+. However, next year, with the exact same algorithm, all students received the same grade: Fail. A society where people are not rewarded each according to his merit is a society where people are not trying their hardest to improve. If you prevent billionaires you also prevent your best performers, your middle class, your millionaires, your small businesses and such. The end result is a uniformly poor society where the most vulnerable hurt the most. Just like communism.

ModernMech 5y ago
That's a nice little joke, but it bears little resemblance to capitalism vs. communism. This whole thread isn't even really about capitalism vs. communism, but it went that way because that's the way it seems to go anytime the economic order is challenged. "Billionaires are bad" -> "Well communism is worse!" Okay... but that doesn't change anything I said about billionaires and the USA. Anyway, you seem to be under the impression that capitalism is a system that rewards merit, and communism is a system that doesn't. That's just not true. Capitalism is a system that rewards ownership, not merit. You're essentially saying that everyone who is rich deserves what they have, and as I look around at the pantheon of the wealthiest individuals in the world, I'm not seeing a lot of merit. Where are all the Nobel prize winners? Where are all the billionaire scientists? Rewards based on ownership are the opposite of rewards based on merit -- you are required to show zero merit under a capitalist society to reap rewards, just a piece of paper declaring your ownership in an asset, ownership which is enforced by the state through violence. How does this lead to a meritorious society? To me it seems it would lead to a society where people don't strive for merit but for ownership of assets. Look, all I'm arguing for is proportionality. No one is ever going to convince me that the 1% have so much merit that they deserve more wealth than billions of people. > The end result is a uniformly poor society where the most vulnerable hurt the most. Just like communism. The end result of capitalism is a society where 1% of the population own 95% of the wealth. Not uniformly poor, I'll give you that. It's quite lopsided and tilted. But one thing's for sure, the most vulnerable are still hurt the most under our capitalist society. Like I said in another post, the USA is sending out child tax credits to reduce childhood poverty this week. Poor children are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and they are hurting so bad the government has to step in. Capitalism is doing nothing for them. And anyway, It's not like there aren't plenty of uniformly poor capitalist countries around today. Just look at Haiti for an example how of how bad it can get.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > capitalism is a system that rewards merit, and communism is a system that doesn't That's right. > The end result of capitalism is a society where 1% of the population own 95% of the wealth. That hasn't happened yet in 250 years of free markets. But the communist countries all achieved that in short order. > Capitalism is doing nothing for them. And yet people with nothing march literally thousands of miles to try to get into the US. Why aren't they marching to communist countries?
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > That's right. How? What's the mechanism? The key component of capitalism is that ownership dictates who gets rewards. It doesn't matter how meritorious you are -- if you don't have ownership you get nothing. That's how the whole thing works. > That hasn't happened yet in 250 years of free markets. But the communist countries all achieved that in short order. The whole point of communism is that ownership is communal, so it doesn't make sense to compare ownership between the two and say one is better at ownership. But just look at the trendlines in our system and tell me how things are going to get better under capitalist dynamics. The rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer. The end stage of capitalism is inevitable unless anti-free market dynamics are introduced. > And yet people with nothing march literally thousands of miles to try to get into the US. Why aren't they marching to communist countries? And what happens when they get here? Are they suddenly wealthy and prosperous in our capitalist utopia? Or are they some of the poorest and most marginalized people in our country? America's #1 export is propaganda. That people fall for the propaganda is not an endorsement of capitalism.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      > It doesn't matter how meritorious you are -- if you don't have ownership you get nothing. Tell that to the recent graduate getting multi hundred of thousand offers (with stock!) from FAANG companies. Tell that to the entrepreneur owning 100% of his brand new company after filling a few forms and paying a small fee. Because that new company is worth exactly 0. Ownership by itself gets you nothing. Making that property worth something is everything. And that’s why self made billionaires deserve their rewards. > That people fall for the propaganda It is funny to pretend to care about a category of people but then refuse them the right to think for themselves. Classical leftist: "We need to save the poor! From themselves…"

by nickpp 5y ago

ModernMech 5y ago

That's a nice little joke, but it bears little resemblance to capitalism vs. communism. This whole thread isn't even really about capitalism vs. communism, but it went that way because that's the way it seems to go anytime the economic order is challenged. "Billionaires are bad" -> "Well communism is worse!" Okay... but that doesn't change anything I said about billionaires and the USA. Anyway, you seem to be under the impression that capitalism is a system that rewards merit, and communism is a system that doesn't. That's just not true. Capitalism is a system that rewards ownership, not merit. You're essentially saying that everyone who is rich deserves what they have, and as I look around at the pantheon of the wealthiest individuals in the world, I'm not seeing a lot of merit. Where are all the Nobel prize winners? Where are all the billionaire scientists? Rewards based on ownership are the opposite of rewards based on merit -- you are required to show zero merit under a capitalist society to reap rewards, just a piece of paper declaring your ownership in an asset, ownership which is enforced by the state through violence. How does this lead to a meritorious society? To me it seems it would lead to a society where people don't strive for merit but for ownership of assets. Look, all I'm arguing for is proportionality. No one is ever going to convince me that the 1% have so much merit that they deserve more wealth than billions of people. > The end result is a uniformly poor society where the most vulnerable hurt the most. Just like communism. The end result of capitalism is a society where 1% of the population own 95% of the wealth. Not uniformly poor, I'll give you that. It's quite lopsided and tilted. But one thing's for sure, the most vulnerable are still hurt the most under our capitalist society. Like I said in another post, the USA is sending out child tax credits to reduce childhood poverty this week. Poor children are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and they are hurting so bad the government has to step in. Capitalism is doing nothing for them. And anyway, It's not like there aren't plenty of uniformly poor capitalist countries around today. Just look at Haiti for an example how of how bad it can get.

WalterBright 5y ago
> capitalism is a system that rewards merit, and communism is a system that doesn't That's right. > The end result of capitalism is a society where 1% of the population own 95% of the wealth. That hasn't happened yet in 250 years of free markets. But the communist countries all achieved that in short order. > Capitalism is doing nothing for them. And yet people with nothing march literally thousands of miles to try to get into the US. Why aren't they marching to communist countries?
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > That's right. How? What's the mechanism? The key component of capitalism is that ownership dictates who gets rewards. It doesn't matter how meritorious you are -- if you don't have ownership you get nothing. That's how the whole thing works. > That hasn't happened yet in 250 years of free markets. But the communist countries all achieved that in short order. The whole point of communism is that ownership is communal, so it doesn't make sense to compare ownership between the two and say one is better at ownership. But just look at the trendlines in our system and tell me how things are going to get better under capitalist dynamics. The rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer. The end stage of capitalism is inevitable unless anti-free market dynamics are introduced. > And yet people with nothing march literally thousands of miles to try to get into the US. Why aren't they marching to communist countries? And what happens when they get here? Are they suddenly wealthy and prosperous in our capitalist utopia? Or are they some of the poorest and most marginalized people in our country? America's #1 export is propaganda. That people fall for the propaganda is not an endorsement of capitalism.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    > It doesn't matter how meritorious you are -- if you don't have ownership you get nothing. Tell that to the recent graduate getting multi hundred of thousand offers (with stock!) from FAANG companies. Tell that to the entrepreneur owning 100% of his brand new company after filling a few forms and paying a small fee. Because that new company is worth exactly 0. Ownership by itself gets you nothing. Making that property worth something is everything. And that’s why self made billionaires deserve their rewards. > That people fall for the propaganda It is funny to pretend to care about a category of people but then refuse them the right to think for themselves. Classical leftist: "We need to save the poor! From themselves…"