The bourgeoisie aren't that bad.

Shawn

I've never studied Marxist economics in great detail; but, one thing stands out in my mind about treating the bourgeoisie as villans. Mind you, this isn't a conservative glorification of their worth to the economy. Everyone ought to know that 10 people with a million is simply flat out better than one person with 10 million in any sort of socio-economic dynamical equilibria (perhaps barring monopolies, and even that is a stretch).

Namely, one has to understand that the Rothchilds or Rockefellers, cannot maintain their intergenerational mobility. The workings of the market and animalistic spirits manifesting in the works of it, by people, simply dissuade most people from holding onto their savings for the entirety of their life. Had Trump held onto his inherited wealth from his father and invested it in an index fund of the S&P 100, he'd be a much richer man than he is today. Yet, he didn't choose to do so. I assume this was out of pride rather than a purely rational decision. Hence, why I never put much value in conspiracy theories, like the Jews owning the FED or some such... stuff. Sure, the rich Rothschild or Vanderbilt might know that it is better to save their money to entertain the luxuries of the market, but, if one understands that they can't hold onto their wealth forever, then the conspirational chain breaks down.

Here's what I would like to point out. Namely, that despite growing inequality, and hatred towards Boomers by my generation, that the rich still desire what the poor might as well desire too (please don't confuse this with trickle-down). They are neither malicious, nor alien lizards hoarding all the wealth in the world. And, if what they desire is the same as what one poor bloke may want, then the realization of that want is made easier by economies of scale and other deflationary tendencies that make goods cheaper and better, relatively speaking, than they were 10 or 100 years ago.

There are a multitude of factors, that make this so, which I won't delve into here; but, can if anyone is interested.

Eee

↪Wallows

If those who 'hate the rich' could be 'magically' made billionaires, it would be fun to see what they would do or not do with those billions. While I think we poor nobodies should tax them big time, I also think there's some silliness in hating them for their wealth alone. It's easy for poor people to talk a big game. Resentment/envy is 'obviously' a possibility.

In short, I agree that lots of the ultra-rich are probably good people or OK people. And of course many of them do give millions away.

Shawn

If those who 'hate the rich' could be 'magically' made billionaires, it would be fun to see what they would do or not do with those billions. — Eee

Right? I've heard that argument formalized into:

If we we're to level the playing field for all participants, then the formerly rich would once again end up being the rich, whilst the poor-poor. — God

Makes me wanna puke, if anyone actually believes that.

Pfhorrest

I don’t think any real socialists villainize the rich as people, rather they figure that everybody is doing what they can to get ahead, and criticize systemic or institutional factors that give further advantages to those who are already ahead. If it was just a few bad apples, the problem would be a lot easier; but it’s not, it’s a system that gives all the apples to a few, if I may confuse the metaphor.

Shawn

I don’t think any real socialists villainize the rich as people, rather they figure that everybody is doing what they can to get ahead, and criticize systemic or institutional factors that give further advantages to those who are already ahead. If it was just a few bad apples, the problem would be a lot easier; but it’s not, it’s a system that gives all the apples to a few, if I may confuse the metaphor. — Pfhorrest

You know what differentiates an Ivy League college from a "normal" one, right?

Eee

Makes me wanna puke, if anyone actually believes that. — Wallows

No, to me those are different thoughts. My point is that it's easy for poor people to brag about their greatness of soul. At the same time many poor people 'worship' fame and comfort and travel. Basically we humans are often full of shit. So the real test is what we do with power or money or fame when we get it.

When people hate 'the rich,' it's not that far from hating women, men, blacks, Catholics, Jews, etc. Basically the risk is always that we're hating a cartoon that sketches some part of ourselves that we don't want to see and therefore project elsewhere. (An old, basic idea.)

Eee

I don’t think any real socialists villainize the rich as people, rather they figure that everybody is doing what they can to get ahead, and criticize systemic or institutional factors that give further advantages to those who are already ahead. — Pfhorrest

This sounds like the rational approach. At the same time I think we're only rational at our best.

Eee

If we we're to level the playing field for all participants, then the formerly rich would once again end up being the rich, whilst the poor-poor. — God

Responding to this thought: I personally think that a certain type of person will tend to gather coins. That doesn't make them better or worse. Even among us relatively poor people we see those who are more careful with their money than others, those who trade free time for wage-labor and the reverse. And we are also dreamers as a species.

Some people are more clear-eyed about practical matters than others. Freedom allows us to do stupid things, go into credit card debt for stupid objects that we don't need, etc. So freedom + property rights will indeed lead pretty quickly to the rich and the poor.

But, as I said, I'm all for taxing the rich and working against severe inequality.

I like sushi

Everyone ought to know that 10 people with a million is simply flat out better than one person with 10 million in any sort of socio-economic dynamical equilibria (perhaps barring monopolies, and even that is a stretch). — Wallows

Not necessarily. Depends who they are.

Shawn

↪Eee

Well, my point is that there's nothing unique about being rich or coming to that status.

Shawn

I personally think that a certain type of person will tend to gather coins. — Eee

How-so? Teach me! I wanna be rich too!

Shawn

Not necessarily. Depends who they are. — I like sushi

What do you mean? Are you referring to drug addicts or other types that squander their wealth?

I suppose this can be true; but, if you're a billionaire the point kind of becomes moot, unless your buying Ferrari's to every person you met in life.

I like sushi

↪Wallows

Consider that people with money tend to get money because they know how to use it. 10 million doesn’t make you a billionaire either. What is all this about distributing Ferraris?

Shawn

Consider that people with money tend to get money because they know how to use it. 10 million doesn’t make you a billionaire either. What is all this about distributing Ferraris? — I like sushi

So, rich people get richer or stay the same because they know more about money than Joe from Starbucks does?

Marchesk

Makes me wanna puke, if anyone actually believes that. — Wallows

Some would end up poor or rich like they were before, because they have/don't have the habits, skills and connections to do so. It's not all luck or birthright.

If you took all of Musk or Beezos' money, do you think they just end up homeless? Or do they go and pitch some ideas to venture capitalists and start a new business?

Lottery winners and plenty of athletes often blow their money in a few years, because they don't understand how to maintain their wealth and invest wisely.

Shawn

Some would end poor or rich like they were before, because they have/don't have the habits, skills and connections to do so. It's not all luck or birthright. — Marchesk

So, being or becoming rich is a sort of inside thing? I mean, really, what differentiates some guy off the street scrounging from a dollar from a person in a Bentley driving around town and flaunting his or her wealth?

Marchesk

So, being or becoming rich is a sort of inside thing? I — Wallows

Sometimes, but also it's being able to pursue an idea at the right time, and being willing to risk failing. And then succeeding enough to garner recognition. Silicon Valley has a motto of failing fast and often, and real artists ship their product. It means get your stuff out there and be ready to pivot.

Not everyone is willing to do that, and they're okay with just a normal job. And then there are people who wreck their lives or don't care to bother.

So while we can certainly criticize the various issues around wealth imbalance, we also don't want to disincentive people from being skilled and creative and increasing the economic pie.

I have no interest in living in a society in which we're all equally poor.

I like sushi

↪Wallows

One person with one million can do more than ten people sharing one million because you’d likely never get everyone pulling in the same direction. One person will attract like minded people where ten will tend to splinter.

I was just pointing out that the individual talents count rather than the number of people. Not everyone with money hoards money for the sake of hoarding money, anymore than every poor person has ten children and a drug habit.

So no, I don’t think everyone with some wit would agree with your statement at all.

Shawn

Sometimes, but also it's being able to pursue an idea at the right time, and being willing to risk failing. — Marchesk

OK, but that sounds like luck to me.

Silicon Valley has a motto of failing fast and often, and real artists ship their product. It means get your stuff out there and be ready to pivot. — Marchesk

I read Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert T. Kiyosaki, a long time ago; but, it was all there on paper, just like Warren Buffett tell most people that it's all about value and growth and maintaining a balance between the two on the stock market.

I suppose we ought to define what does "being rich" at all even mean?

Shawn

One person with one million can do more than ten people sharing one million because you’d likely never get everyone pulling in the same direction. — I like sushi

To the individual or the economy as a whole?

Marchesk

OK, but that sounds like luck to me. — Wallows

To an extent. You also don't get to be lucky if you don't try. But I'm not against increasing taxes on the wealthy. I'm against the idea of equal outcome. We're not all equal in ability.

Shawn

You also don't get to be lucky if you don't try. — Marchesk

Circular, but, I get the point. So, then if not being lucky, then maybe talent or knowledge?

I like sushi

↪Wallows

Both

Marchesk

Circular, but, I get the point. So, then if not being lucky, then maybe talent or knowledge? — Wallows

So let's restrict the domain to sports. If you want to become a rich athlete (starting off as a youth), it's certainly possible. But it takes a tremendous amount of work. You don't just luck into it by occasionally playing a sport as you're growing up.

Now luck certainly enters it with injuries, timing and where you go to play college or what club or what not. And some people are more marketable than others, and get offered nice endorsement deals.

But none of that happens without trying.

Shawn

↪I like sushi

So, I'm sensing some conservative undertones here.

What is good for the individual is good for the economy as a whole, is that correct?

Shawn

↪Marchesk

Nothing about being rich is Darwinian in nature. Is that what you have in mind?

Marchesk

So, I'm sensing some conservative undertones here. — Wallows

Is there something wrong with that?

What is god for the individual is good for the economy as a whole, is that correct? — Wallows

It can be.

Marchesk

Nothing about being rich is Darwinian in nature. Is that what you have in mind? — Wallows

I'm not making blanket statements. But also, what's wrong with the Darwinian part when it comes to being rich?

Now note I'm not saying that's good for being poor or huge wealth imbalances, I'm just asking about financial success. We can use progressive taxation to address that.

Shawn

Is there something wrong with that? — Marchesk

Not per se; but, I've never been much of a supply-side economist if we're going down that path, and neither do I think any particular 'ism has the astute and right view on the matter, which both either Democrats or Republicans would like to assert, try as they might.

It can be. — Marchesk

In what way?

Shawn

But also, what's wrong with the Darwinian part when it comes to being rich? — Marchesk

Because you end up being a Randian if you advocate such a view on the matter. Being rich then becomes a matter of 'fact' or 'natural right'.

absoluteaspiration

Hate is silly. I think the basic understanding is that if my boss refuses to hire people who are willing to do each job for the least wages out of compassion for his employees, then any competitor who lacks these scruples will use her edge in profit to expand beyond his means and put him out of business in the (extremely) long run. If my boss must is forced to buy my labor at competitively cheap prices on pain of bankruptcy; that is, if he gets to be my boss only on the condition that he exploits me as much as everyone else, then we are dealing with a systemic problem, not a moral one.

The bourgeoisie aren't that bad.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions