3 ms·
I'm inclined to agree with you, except for the massive, glaring exception of inherited wealth/passive income. If you're just talking about the peons trading la
by pnut 11y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you, except for the massive, glaring exception of inherited wealth/passive income.
If you're just talking about the peons trading labor for money, then yes, more or less.
But there's another class of folks, and my anecdotal evidence is that they're freaking everywhere, overflowing with unearned wealth. I'm nobody from nowhere and I know many of these people, and they'd be screwed if they had to go through what I have.
The veneer of meritocratic capitalism in America should be at the breaking point IMO. But this is a vulgar place so I'm probably wrong.
- fixxer 11y agoNothing you are referring to is limited to America or capitalism. Even with incarnations of economic systems that are purported to solve inequality, who your daddy is matters. Take away wealth and humans will find some other system for status. The argument for capitalism is not about equality, but relative mobility compared to other systems. That mobility creates incentive and thus growth.
- intopieces 11y ago>Nothing you are referring to is limited to America or capitalism. Fair enough. Let's call it all equal then. >The argument for capitalism is not about equality, but relative mobility compared to other systems. The argument for socialism (or socialism-like endeavors) is about equality; when societies are more equal, 'relative mobility' is less important, because the place you're in is less likely to be so horrible that you're dying to get out of it.
- fixxer 11y agoYou missed "In theory" at the beginning of your second response.