It's almost as if philosophy and not mathematics, were the true universal language, no? — Wallows

If we mix philosophy, politics, and religion, then yeah. Tho math is clearly useful, it's something that many only do because they have to. We like our dreams. We like characters.

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'. — Wallows

It's not the being rich part, it's the allowing people to attempt to become rich. Some of it is luck and who you know. Some of it is starting out with money. But some of it is innovation. And we want people to be free to start their own businesses and try out new ideas. Also, if you do start out with wealth, it's better for the economy if you invest it and fund business adventures than it is to just sit in a bank account.

Yes, there is some truth to that. I am a fool. Not quite as mad as TheMadFool, though. I'm working on it though. Maybe someday... who knows? — Wallows

:rofl: At least I got mentioned. Good day folks

Good day folks — TheMadFool

Aye...

Better than nothing — Wallows

No actually, quite worse than nothing, as I had just explained. Having access to credit doesn't improve your odds of winning or losing, you're still every bit as likely to fail and just as unlikely to succeed; going into debt to do it it just makes your losses worse and your (still very unlikely) wins worse, to the benefit of those who gambled on you.

Consider the clear-cut case of someone literally gambling at a casino, where the odds are explicitly stacked in favor of the house, so by definition of that you're more likely to lose than to win. Does extending credit (at interest) to the poor schmucks playing there anyway make the situation better for them, or worse?

Well, you presupposed that they won't win anyway. So, if those poor schmucks can't win then credit is bad for them? Am I getting you right here?

Having access to credit doesn't improve your odds of winning or losing, you're still every bit as likely to fail and just as unlikely to succeed; going into debt to do it it just makes your losses worse and your (still very unlikely) wins worse, to the benefit of those who gambled on you. — Pfhorrest

Presumably these odds your talking about are more than just your opinion. If you’re talking about borrowing money just to get by then yes you’re likely to end up in trouble. But to borrow money for development of a product or for growth of a business is what’s behind all the jobs out there.

My earlier point was than most new business ventures fail, so if you can’t afford to fail enough times to hit the jackpot and come out ahead, saying “take risks and it’ll pay off” is bullshit. You suggested credit ameliorates that problem, but it doesn’t change the underlying odds at all, only costs you money whether you win or lose — it’s just a vehicle for those who have the money to gamble until they hit the jackpot to gamble on your livelihood.

Yeah, well this is why we have underwriters and assessors in banks who weigh the probability of success for a startup along with the interest on the loan being a reflection of that...

The interest is exactly the problem. You’re looking at the risk from the lender’s point of view, when my whole point is that the availability of credit does not ameliorate the problem that those who already have lots of money can afford to take risks that those who don’t have a lot of money cannot. If two otherwise identical people differ only in that one of them has to borrow from a bank at interest and subject to the bank’s judgement while the other can “borrow from himself”, the latter person has way better odds of coming out ahead in the end. That was already the case without the bank in the picture, and adding the bank to the picture didn’t fix the problem.

while the other can “borrow from himself”, the latter person has way better odds of coming out ahead in the end. — Pfhorrest

This is such rubbish.

It’s true, as you say, that more business fail than succeed, but that’s generally about small business. They fail because the owners have very little understanding of what they’re doing. Sadly they lose their money and end up with only debt.

Business doesn’t borrow from itself. Where do you get that from? They borrow against their good credit rating.

People with less money spend more of it ... . — Pfhorrest

More of it than those who have a lot? More nonsense. The basic cost of living is the same for everyone. The rich are able to spend more than that. What you might mean is that they spend more of their income.

If you want to bring down the rich then at least look at the real animal instead of creating something that looks easier to demolish.

You don't seem to understand the point of this conversation. Yes, we're talking about small businesses, which are most businesses. And of course the business itself doesn't borrow from itself. But when the entrepreneur is someone sitting on mountains of cash, they don't have to borrow at all; while when the entrepreneur is an average nobody, they do. The person who doesn't have to borrow has a tremendous advantage. Most of those who start new businesses don't have that advantage, because most people aren't that rich. A tiny fraction of those not-rich business-starters get rich from their successful businesses. A much larger fraction of the tiny number of rich business-starters succeed, because they can afford to fail over and over again until they do. The point is that those who start out with lots of money have an advantage in getting more money faster, even if all other factors are equal, even if they’re equally willing to take risks and equally ingenious and hardworking and good with money. Saying that most people aren’t that amazing is besides the point. The differences between otherwise identical people, who only differ in the money they have to start with, is the point.

And yes, the entire point of that second comment is that poor people spend more of their income, because the cost of living is a greater fraction of that income. So the same money split across more people will end up with more of it being spent. Give me $10,000 and I'll stuff it in my retirement account. Give a bum on the street $10,000 and he'll spend it all staying off the streets for a few months. So more of the $10k gets spent in the bum's hands than in mine.

So, the straw man of why the poor are poor is complete?

Don't take that too seriously, although I hope it comes off as sincere.

I don’t know what you’re talking about but can you please point me to an ignore function here because it’s clear that you’re a witless capitalist apologist with nothing worthwhile to contribute to any conversation. I had a bad feeling about your empty Wittgenstein fanboy discussion-stoppers in my other thread, and this just confirms it.

It's my thread so GTFO.

Gladly.

You better not come to The Lounge then.

This thread wasn’t in the Lounge when I started replying to it, and the only thing bringing me back to it is people replying to me.

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. — Wallows

Millions of Americans struggle to pay for medical bills and hundreds of thousands go bankrupt from it, but sure yeah they aren't that bad, in fact owning more wealth than the bottom 60% of Americans is great.

Millions of Americans struggle to pay for medical bills and hundreds of thousands go bankrupt from it, but sure yeah they aren't that bad, in fact owning more wealth than the bottom 60% of Americans is great. — Maw

Yes, well can't argue with that, apart from the fact that once you dip below the poverty line, there is always Medicare to rely on. Though, that doesn't console much in regards to the matter.

In regards to inequality, that's a thorny topic within economic circles. I believe Krugman (Stiglitz) touched on this issue in his The Price of Inequality, which I have on my bookshelf; but, haven't gotten around to reading.

When reading the passages of Marx where he is describing a good life for a person, it reminds me a lot of what getting to have a bourgeoisie lifestyle might provide, if such self fulfillment is the desire of the said bourgeois.
This observation combined with Marx's antipathy regarding unions suggests to me that he separated the means to get certain benefits from the idea that what was desired was negated in the process of reaching for it.

I like many rich people. I can't stand people whose overriding motivation in life is simply to be rich, though -- regardless of whether they're rich, middle class or poor. Since lying cheating and stealing are very effective money-making strategies, as are more subtle abuses of employees, naturally there are a lot of rich people who are terrible people.