5 ms·

"money they stole". Clarify?

• oinksoft 13y ago
  I'll try: I don't think it is fair to criticized parent for expressing his broad opinion on economics in this particular case. There is a wide body of political and economic thought which believes that capitalism in general is a system designed to create scarcity, social and economic stratification. This vein of thought is particularly prevalent in communist and anarchist circles (see, The Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin, 1892, for a progressive criticism of historic economic systems). Granted, most everybody who uses this website willfully engages in capitalism. However, quite a few do not, and are simply compelled to participate in it. To somebody in the second group who perceives what appears to be a notably frivolous use of money, it is particularly galling to for that same act to essentially further the aforementioned stratification. For that reason, the comment is relevant.
  • michaelochurch 13y ago
    I don't think capitalism is necessarily bad, and it's certainly better than Soviet-style (pseudo-)socialism. Meritocratic capitalism I'd favor strongly. The problem is this who-you-know corporate capitalism based on conformity rather than excellence. I agree that corporations create artificial scarcity, and that it's horrible. I don't know if that's a "capitalism" problem so much as an undesirable result of what happens when a small, socially closed set of people hog lots of resources.
    • oinksoft 13y ago
      Sure, but of course there are other options. Both liberal capitalism and national socialism/state communism (Soviet) are highly centralized forms of government, whereras anarcho-syndicalism is decentralized and highly capitalist, and anarcho-communism is decentralized, based upon overproduction and a radical reimagination of property rights. Barcelona and other parts of Valencia with a strong culture of trade were famously stable (the essential city services remained up and running, etc.) flying the black flag as an anarcho-syndicalist region in the 1930s for a few years before being infiltrated by the communists and dominated later in the Spanish Civil War.
• michaelochurch 13y ago
  Most people who are rich got there by externalizing costs or by taking resources (rarely money; often land and social capital) that didn't belong to them, but whose legitimate owners (often the public) didn't have the ability to defend. There are exceptions, but I doubt that they're more than 15%.
  • danilocampos 13y ago
    Can you explain how you're certain that Tim Cook doesn't fit within the exceptions? You speak in the abstract, but this is a real case.
    • elicash 13y ago
      He was referring to the bidder, not Tim Cook. The bidder is the one gaining connections. But that's why it's an act of charity by Tim Cook, not by the bidder. It's like a bake sale -- it's the person making cupcakes that's donating to the cause, not the person stuffing their face.
    • uptown 13y ago
      I'm pretty sure he's referring to the winning bidder with the "money they stole" comment.
  • staunch 13y ago
    Have you bothered to actually do any research into this wild assumption? Or, as I suspect, does it just help you to feel better thinking that 85% of rich people "stole" their money?
• Steko 13y ago
  This is called a IRD (Improvised Rhetorical Device). You drop it aside a seemingly reasonable argument so that you can later hijack the entire conversation to talk about what you really wanted to. It's effective in it's primary function but also makes it easy for those on the other side of the argument to paint you as a wild radical.