Everybody is always arguing for and against something. There are no absolutes in thinking.

You want as much freedom as is possible. Don't you? — synthesis

Yes, which is more freedom than we have now.

The Czech Republic is not socialist either. They replaced the word “socialist” in the name Czechoslovak Socialist Republic with the word “federal” back in 1990, shortly before the country dissolved. — NOS4A2

That was my point.

Another, more recent example of the failure of capitalism to protect its own long-term interest is the UK response to the Coronavirus.

In the first wave, the response was late not because government is too sluggish to respond to change, but because it was loathe to do anything that hurt short-term profit. Eventually, it almost did the right thing, even shutting down schools and takeaways, and the infection rate was heading in the right direction. This course had worked for many other countries which eradicated or minimised the virus by similar means.

The government took three bizarre decisions. First, they allowed people in and out of the country, even though they knew the crisis was global. There were occasional quarantine rules and travel bans to and from particular countries, but for the most part, international travel was unregulated. As a result, it didn't import the virus once or twice, but over a thousand times over (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/212093/covid-19-transmission-chains-uk-traced-back/). The Home Office's explanation? It "helped businesses to maintain international connections" and "boosted the economy". The result was a second wave from the Spanish variant that necessitated the tier system before the the UK variant evolved and spread. (Likewise the government was ambivalent about national travel, viz. Dominic Cummings.) That commerce trumped safety and sanity means that that variant is now spreading across the world.

Second, despite the infection rate still being higher than that which necessitated lockdown in the first place, the government ended the lockdown and replaced it with instructions to businesses to manage the virus with no oversight of either the businesses or its customers as to whether they adhered to guidelines.

Third, no matter what happened afterwards, they insisted on keeping schools open rather than investing in remote teaching, eventually making school-age the fastest-rising demographic for infection. Because every time a classmate got a sniffle the whole class had to quarantine (because the government also refused to invest in testing), these children have had no education to speak of for a year. The important thing for the government was not that children got their lessons, but that parents could drop their kids off and go back to work during a pandemic. Schools that did not provide this child-sitting function or local authorities who tried to switch to safer, more useful remote methods were threatened (e.g. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/schools-open-covid-london-tier-3-b1773359.html). The government were clear: parents had to get back to work today, no matter the consequences weeks and months down the line.

By making the short-term interests of corporations paramount, the UK has protracted the harm of the pandemic, leading to a huge number of collapsed businesses (e.g. https://www.business-live.co.uk/retail-consumer/list-shops-fallen-administration-2020-18177619 is just the big name shops). The long-term effects of not handling the pandemic on commerce were easy to appraise. Did they appraise them? Probably not or, if they did, the short-term needs were overriding. Businesses, including airlines, failed anyway despite the short-term expenditure on keeping them going.

The UK's Covid response was another clear case where the short-term concerns of business were diametrically opposed to the long-term concerns of commerce, and where caving to the former created exactly the latter. The pandemic has shown that there is never a good time to have a purely capitalist party in power, and the need for a state that is more interested in the sustainable health of its business than the fastest way to make a buck.

In order to understand capitalism, you need to put aside your socialist sensitivities.
In capitalism, people are expendable. It's about living for an idea, even if the person living for that idea dies in the process.

In order to understand capitalism, you need to put aside your socialist sensitivities.
In capitalism, people are expendable. It's about living for an idea, even if the person living for that idea dies in the process. — baker

The purpose of the thread is not to convert people to capitalism, but to discuss the benefits of pluralism in keeping capitalism sustainable.

In order to understand capitalism, you need to put aside your socialist sensitivities.
In capitalism, people are expendable. It's about living for an idea, even if the person living for that idea dies in the process. — baker

The system is Nature, not capitalism. Yes, people and every living organism on this planet are expendable. This would seem to be a fairly basic truth, no?

If there was a better system than capitalism, believe me, the greedy bastards that run this world would be using it to their advantage. Remember, the best way to steal is in broad daylight, in full view of everybody.

The purpose of the thread is not to convert people to capitalism, but to discuss the benefits of pluralism in keeping capitalism sustainable. — Kenosha Kid

It would be difficult not coming to the conclusion that empowering the individual is the best hope for mankind. Groups are organized to essentially screw-over individuals, and little more.

This is why you must do whatever is possible to have the smallest government possible. Government is at best, treacherous, at worst, the Devil, Himself.

It would be difficult not coming to the conclusion that empowering the individual is the best hope for mankind. — synthesis

Which individual? If you mean all individuals, that's a group. Unless those that are not empowered are just a random sample, it's difficult to avoid groups if you want to empower people.

This is why you must do whatever is possible to have the smallest government possible. Government is at best, treacherous, at worst, the Devil, Himself. — synthesis

As I recall it, left to their own devices the private sector failed to empower women until equal rights and opportunities legislation forced their hands, and even then they opposed it when they could. Women in the workforce has turned out to be one of the biggest economic boons for the private sector: twice the recruitment pool, which keeps wages low and prices high for twin-income households.

Another example of capitalism failing to act in its own interests.

This is why you must do whatever is possible to have the smallest government possible. Government is at best, treacherous, at worst, the Devil, Himself.

That used to be what it was like for people across the spectrum. For Engels the state machinery would necessarily whither away. For Thomas Paine the government was at best a necessary evil. But over time it has only become bigger, more entrenched, and its subjects have lost most of their power. The covid response proves their totalitarian aspirations, and the obsequiousness of today’s statists.

It would be difficult not coming to the conclusion that empowering the individual is the best hope for mankind.
— synthesis

Which individual? If you mean all individuals, that's a group. Unless those that are not empowered are just a random sample, it's difficult to avoid groups if you want to empower people. — Kenosha Kid

Empowering the individual means providing the greatest opportunities to work towards financial independence. All systems (groups) want to do just the opposite, create as much dependence as possible.

People actually empower themselves through persistent hard work.

This is why you must do whatever is possible to have the smallest government possible. Government is at best, treacherous, at worst, the Devil, Himself.
— synthesis

As I recall it, left to their own devices the private sector failed to empower women until equal rights and opportunities legislation forced their hands, and even then they opposed it when they could. Women in the workforce has turned out to be one of the biggest economic boons for the private sector: twice the recruitment pool, which keeps wages low and prices high for twin-income households. — Kenosha Kid

The "private sector" is millions of different interests. You speak as if it was just one voice. Women joining the workforce had many issues surrounding (and still does). It would be hard to defend the thought that kids are better off with working moms than ones who are able to stay at home. Complicated issues, for sure.

And (to large part), it was government policy (going off the gold standard in '71 which led to outsourcing and enormous trade deficits balanced with worth-less FIAT currency) that began the trashing of the American middle class in 70's that forced so many women going to work in the first place.

Another example of capitalism failing to act in its own interests. — Kenosha Kid

As previously mentioned, it's a miracle that human beings (in groups) can accomplish much of anything besides beating the crap out of each other.

It would be hard to defend the thought that kids are better off with working moms than ones who are able to stay at home. — synthesis

This is sounding like an argument for not empowering certain people.

This is sounding like an argument for not empowering certain people. — Kenosha Kid

People need to empower themselves by choosing that path which makes the most sense for themselves and their families.

People need to empower themselves by choosing that path which makes the most sense for themselves and their families. — synthesis

So women (since you specified women, not "one of the parents) can empower themselves so long as that empowerment looks identical to being trapped in domestic servitude?

Black is white, up is down, and patriarchal fundamentalist attitudes toward what women should be allowed to do is basically women's lib.

Remember, women and families existed before Karl Marx. If you choose to see everything through this filter of class struggle giving way to identity politics, then why bother engaging in discourse?

Talk from your own experience. I've read Marx and all the rest. No need to re-hash their stuff. How do you feel about this from what you have experienced in your life?

Remember, women and families existed before Karl Marx. — synthesis

Historically, women worked, and children were raised by entire villages. That arrangement doesn't work now, so different arrangements are judicious. I'm happy to accept that some of those past arrangements would have put the bulk of the burden of labour on men and the bulk of child rearing on women.

But once again the world has moved on. It is much simpler to have flexible arrangements. Covid might change things yet again, pushing us more toward remote working. The optimum arrangement for raising children is, in other words, context-dependent. The Victorian values you espouse would have been no use 20,000 years ago and are of no importance today. Time mocks absolutes.

Talk from your own experience. — synthesis

Easy enough. I know happy, well-adjusted children raised by single mothers, single fathers, parents where the father works, parents where the mother works, parents where both work, and same-sex parents. I also am all too familiar with the damage done by conservative ideas of concrete family structures. The charity I raise for is Women's Aid. Back in 2015, the UK's conservative government started hacking funding for shelters for women attempting to flee, often with their children, domestic violence, resulting in two-thirds of victims being forced to choose between homelessness and a life of abuse, all in the name of the conservative patented Traditional Family Values.

So far, the One Single Formula for getting it right is making itself highly inconspicuous to me through lack of evidence, like God or trickle-down economics: it's more a religious belief than anything approaching an empirical fact. I am more than happy to see women increasingly empowered to choose for themselves whether to stay at home, work, take it in turns, or go it alone as they see fit, not as conservative men think they should see fit. Like a lot of men these days, I'm also keen to see the burden of labour increasingly shared, and as a result see fathers given the chance to bond more with their children rather than be squeezed out by outdated values manifested in maternal gatekeeping.

We had a big push here for more paternity leave rights in response to how many men want to take more care if their children in early years. Traditional Family Values aren't working for them either. Alas the legislation was so diluted by the time it was realised that we're still waiting for that to pass, but the desire is there.

The great thing about empowerment is that empowers people to do the thing you'd like to see them do. Most women this empowered might well proceed as per Traditional Family Values: after all, it's what appears normal. But the flip side is that those for whom such outdated values don't work don't have to abide by them. We call this freedom.

The optimum arrangement for raising children is, in other words, context-dependent. The Victorian values you espouse would have been no use 20,000 years ago and are of no importance today. — Kenosha Kid

Studies overwhelming suggest that children raised in two parent homes are more successful in every possible category. It comes down to what's more important, the children or the parent, and it's become quite clear that (in the U.S., at least,) children have been made a much less of a priority over the past generation or two. The mantra was always to sacrifice (not necessarily financially) so your kids could have it better than you did. What happened to change this is under intense scrutiny in the social sciences.

I am more than happy to see women increasingly empowered to choose for themselves whether to stay at home, work, take it in turns, or go it alone as they see fit, not as conservative men think they should see fit. — Kenosha Kid

Here's the problem (especially with professional moms). I have known and worked closely with over a dozen highly successful, dedicated professional moms over the years. Every one of them were over-worked and completely burned-out trying to be the super-woman that society tells them they should be.

Almost every one had a horrible marriage with out semi- out of control kids. But they all live in nice neighborhoods, in very nice homes, drove nice cars, and are miserable. This is a huge problem among Western professional women, and I am sure it is common among all women who are trying to do it all.

The great thing about empowerment is that empowers people to do the thing you'd like to see them do. Most women this empowered might well proceed as per Traditional Family Values: after all, it's what appears normal. But the flip side is that those for whom such outdated values don't work don't have to abide by them. We call this freedom. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, and people should have every right to make these choices. If you believe you can have it all, go for it, but remember, live by the sword, die by the sword.

And one more thing. Almost every society that does not make "the family" and its needs THE priority, fails. And it's exactly what you're seeing in the West today.

Studies overwhelming suggest that children raised in two parent homes are more successful in every possible category. — synthesis

Well, that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. People do have the ability to split when a relationship is bad, which ups the average for parents that don't split. Children have been shown to do less well in school if their parents divorce, but that's not the fault of divorce, that's the fault of bad marriages. The worst off kids are those whose parents are in conflict but haven't yet split. (Musick K, Meier A. Are both parents always better than one? Parental conflict and young adult well-being. Soc Sci Res. 2010 Sep;39(5):814-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.002. PMID: 20824195; PMCID: PMC2930824.)

Here's the problem (especially with professional moms). I have known and worked closely with over a dozen highly successful, dedicated professional moms over the years. Every one of them were over-worked and completely burned-out trying to be the super-woman that society tells them they should be. — synthesis

The thing I most see complained about in this regard is that, as well as being mothers and full-time workers, they also have to do most of the housework as if they weren't working (feminists call this 'unpaid labour'). It isn't surprising to me, given that people tend to know like-minded people, that men who espouse traditional gender roles also know women who are stressed out. Generally, women do not see work as the thing that needs to give. Single working mothers also have less of a problem in this regard, which again points to the men as the problem. (https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.10520/EJC89089). It's also a situation that is improving over time. Best thing you can do to support a woman who is struggling to juggle work, home and children is to do more of the second two, not forbid the first one. You identify the cause yourself, but didn't know it:

Almost every one had a horrible marriage — synthesis

Yep, that'll do it.

Yes, and people should have every right to make these choices. If you believe you can have it all, go for it, but remember, live by the sword, die by the sword. — synthesis

It's like the market is supposed to be. Letting each mother choose how best to manage their lives is more efficient than being told by a bunch of men with outdated ideas.

Almost every society that does not make "the family" and its needs THE priority, fails. And it's exactly what you're seeing in the West today. — synthesis

That's absolutely untrue. Distributed parenting has been the norm throughout most of the lifetime of the human race, and still persists today. The children are healthier, more sociable, and more capable.


We've gotten somewhat off-topic. Irrespective of whether working women is best for the children, best for the father's, best for the mother's or best for society, it is absolutely best for the market, and yet the market has always resisted. The market does not act in its own long-term interest willingly: it has to be forced to do so.

We've gotten somewhat off-topic. Irrespective of whether working women is best for the children, best for the father's, best for the mother's or best for society, it is absolutely best for the market, and yet the market has always resisted. The market does not act in its own long-term interest willingly: it has to be forced to do so. — Kenosha Kid

If you look at Western society, in general, you see narcissism on a massive scale. Despite all the various reasons for this, the results are pretty clear...make your life about your 'self,' refuse to take personal responsibility, and things are not so wonderful for you.

It's interesting than an entire movement has arisen around this mind-set (the institutionalization of blame) where the market has supplied these folks with all kinds of rationale for their pitiful behavior. And the whiners have piled on in record numbers.

Success in life is about getting your act together by taking responsibility for your own actions and refusing to engage in the blame game. It's hard work and more hard work after that. Life is what it is at whatever time you happen to be alive. Either you deal with it, work hard and prosper or you blame everybody else for your refusal to do what needs to be done.

Success in life is about getting your act together by taking responsibility for your own actions and refusing to engage in the blame game. — synthesis

Success of the market is supposed to follow from the drive toward success of the individuals in it. It is therefore in the market's interest to ensure as many people as possible can do their best. Stark inequality manifest as an unlevel playing ground is not an economically effective way for the society to organise itself. If person A is heavily advantaged to succeed than person B, the market loses out on the potential successes of person B. Likewise if person B cannot afford what person A makes, the market loses out again.

Sorry for late response. Apparently I started it a week ago then forgot to finish. Not really worth a week's wait, is it...

I’d like to share some of my thoughts which I think may be useful in this case.

Firstly on capitalism: Capitalism is based on supply and demand. The more people who want a specific item the more valuable that item is at X quantity. Should the quantity increase (supply) the value lowers. Should demand (population desiring said Product) increase at a fixed X quantity then again the value increases (cost).

This is actually a negative feedback loop that regulates the price of products. Let’s consider the product as “essential” - something necessary to basic human needs for example education, as opposed to “luxury”.

When an essential service or product becomes “out of reach” in price for the general population -because it is essential - this invokes either a). an increase in supply (new companies or institutions and competition) b). Innovation - the development of new ways to decrease the cost of production or increase the utility/ essentialness of the product. c). Substitution - the offering of a different product that can provide similar functions or d). Decrease in price of the product by the established company - if no one can buy your product your earning potential drops and this can threaten the survival of a company.

On failing any of these mechanisms to resolve the price increase (which is unlikely) then d). Policy and regulation reform is a final option: that is to say government/ banking intervention in the form of new laws, cuts to tax, vat, tariffs, grants, interest rates etc which essentially bolsters the buying potential of the consumer making the product again affordable.

The diverse interplay between these is very effective at generating stability for the general consumer population.

Unfortunately capitalism relies on the existence of a spectrum. It requires a minority to be poor, a majority to be middleclass and another minority to be wealthy. Let’s imagine everyone is made middle class (No poor and no rich) then demand greatly increases (because everyone has money to afford something) which increases the value of the product: this value increase leads to capitalising and the reemergence of a wealthy class as well as simultaneously leaving some unable to afford it (poor).

The proper function of an economy really relies on the middle class however as it is the majority. If anything disturbs the buying power of the middle class then the whole economy suffers (for both the wealthy and the poor) e.g recessions, large scale unemployment/economic collapse etc.

An important lesson can be learned from this with regard to population size and cost of living. This is one of “dependence”. The more an individual outsources their needs onto others by using money/ the market, the more dependent they are on the systems health for satisfying their basic human needs.

If we consider resources as finite and population as increasing we can predict that there will be a natural revival of “self- sufficiency” practises. This means relying less on large scale industry and more on home industry or micro-industry.

We are actually seeing this. There is a renaissance of basic craft/ home industry going on in first world countries (third world already heavily rely on this). The utility of the internet in circumventing the need to pay for education to attain these skills makes it a lucrative money- saving endeavour.

So I would imagine that is the Global capitalist system escalates then there will be a cultural shift back to local Independent products; think knitting your own clothing, Ceramics, home cultivation of produce, Crafting furniture, buying locally farmed produce, reusing, upcycling, etc in small groups.

This has a net impact on the capitalist market as companies see people moving away from High end buying and moving towards self-producing. This is a final regulatory system that ensures the price of using the global market is reduced to make it lucrative.

In summary; cultural change has a colossal impact on shaping the market. And these mechanisms are reactionary - they don’t ever stay the same. During the war in the 1900s there was a huge shift from buying to home d.i.y as people struggled to make ends meet.

It’s important to remember that economics is not based on money it is based on mass psychology. Individual decisions and behaviour. Which is ultimately cultural not fiscal.

Stark inequality manifest as an unlevel playing ground is not an economically effective way for the society to organize itself. If person A is heavily advantaged to succeed than person B, the market loses out on the potential successes of person B. Likewise if person B cannot afford what person A makes, the market loses out again. — Kenosha Kid

Even if you thought it to be advantageous, there is no way to equalize outcome. The more people try, the worse things get. What you can do is maximize opportunity and allow nature to take its course. People will do all kinds of things with their opportunity based on an infinite number of reasons that nobody will ever understand.

Thinking that any particular outcome should be lands you in the "playing God" category. If you look around the natural world, you will find basically the same types of results you do in humanity. We are part of nature and will never be able to get around that inconvenient truth.

Firstly on capitalism: Capitalism is based on supply and demand. The more people who want a specific item the more valuable that item is at X quantity. Should the quantity increase (supply) the value lowers. Should demand (population desiring said Product) increase at a fixed X quantity then again the value increases (cost).

This is actually a negative feedback loop that regulates the price of products. — Benj96

Demand is created, not pre-existing. The demand for Apple products is manufactured by Apple. The demand for fancy hats likewise. Every sweatshop-made tee shirt with a logo on it. Every new perfume or aftershave. So it's not like companies are just responding to external factors. You can make millions of something that no one needs and sell it to the same people not just at an arbitrarily high price, but over and over again.

This is why the following doesn't hold:

Let’s imagine everyone is made middle class (No poor and no rich) then demand greatly increases (because everyone has money to afford something) which increases the value of the product: this value increase leads to capitalising and the reemergence of a wealthy class as well as simultaneously leaving some unable to afford it (poor). — Benj96

It is not just middle class people buying Apple products. It's poor people getting into debt to have the latest groovy piece of tat. And long term Apple want everyone to buy not just one, but one a year. However they'd baulk at paying their staff enough in the short term to afford one, hence the importance of the debt economy.

So I would imagine that is the Global capitalist system escalates then there will be a cultural shift back to local Independent products; think knitting your own clothing, Ceramics, home cultivation of produce, Crafting furniture, buying locally farmed produce, reusing, upcycling, etc in small groups. — Benj96

I'm certainly in that shift, but it's expensive. Supermarkets, for instance, buy in such bulk that they can afford to insist on an extremely small profit margin for farmers. That profit per pint is negligible: it's barely viable for bulk producers and not viable at all for small ones. It's approaching a crisis point in which farmers will just stop doing dairy. Then the price will soar and fewer people will buy it, leading to losses for both retailers and producers. Another example of how short-term profit leads to long-term catastrophe.

Even if you thought it to be advantageous, there is no way to equalize outcome. — synthesis

That's not a reason to perpetuate systematic inequality, though. Minimising something bad isn't pointless just because 0 is unattainable. If you tried to reduce your Covid risk to zero, for instance, you'd be Howard Hughesing it within a week! :rofl:

The more people try, the worse things get. What you can do is maximize opportunity and allow nature to take its course. — synthesis

Maximising opportunity entails maximising the number of people with opportunity, not just maximising opportunity for the already advantaged.

Thinking that any particular outcome should be lands you in the "playing God" category. — synthesis

Any action ever taken impacts one's environment according to how one thinks it should be. Acting according to how you think things should be is inevitable.

Even if you thought it to be advantageous, there is no way to equalize outcome.
— synthesis

That's not a reason to perpetuate systematic inequality, though. Minimising something bad isn't pointless just because 0 is unattainable. If you tried to reduce your Covid risk to zero, for instance, you'd be Howard Hughesing it within a week! :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

You can not intervene in 8+B people's lives to secure whatever outcome you believe would be ideal, but you can work towards maximizing opportunity and then allowing individuals to make of it what they will. People who are successful are so because they have the motivation to be such. This is instilled by the family, the culture, and most importantly, the individual themselves.

Life is pretty much a bell curve.

People who are successful are so because they have the motivation to be such. — synthesis

This is just right wing propaganda, though. There's no actual truth to it; it's just something privileged people promote to justify the perpetuation of their privilege. Viz:

https://youtu.be/bJ8Kq1wucsk

People who are successful are so because they have the motivation to be such.
— synthesis

This is just right wing propaganda, though. There's no actual truth to it; it's just something privileged people promote to justify the perpetuation of their privilege. — Kenosha Kid

Right-wing propaganda? No, I believe this is common sense. Do you see everything through your political spectacles?

If you have achieved any success in your life, did it not come from your motivation to succeed? Do you believe that all people who happen to be more fortunate through [whatever] are just handed success? This would be a very naive pov.

People who are successful are so because they have the motivation to be such.
— synthesis

This is just right wing propaganda, though. There's no actual truth to it; it's just something privileged people promote to justify the perpetuation of their privilege. Viz:

https://youtu.be/bJ8Kq1wucsk — Kenosha Kid

The truth is somewhere in the middle, no? Some successful people literally just inherit their money or succeed with an investment or use their parent's connections to land a sweet job, but others genuinely do grind and hustle and those are the ones you gotta admire. There are plenty of examples of both and plenty of successful people who are borderline admirable.

Some successful people literally just inherit their money or succeed with an investment or use their parent's connections to land a sweet job, but others genuinely do grind and hustle and those are the ones you gotta admire. There are plenty of examples of both and plenty of successful people who are borderline admirable. — BitconnectCarlos

I believe you equate success with wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most wealthy people I have known over the years are pretty miserable (unsuccessful).

No, I believe this is common sense. — synthesis

It's common, but no sense involved. Any study you care to look at tells the same story. Another interesting one was Kahneman's study of stock traders. He found no difference between the success rate of wealthier "experts" given better opportunities and those scrabbling at the bottom. The difference was luck, no skill involved. If you get lucky, you're advantaged thereafter. But those lucky traders believed, and their peers confirmed, they had talent.

That's not to say there aren't rags to riches stories irl, but it's a useful, coincidentally sometimes true myth to divert focus from why some people are born into riches and others into rags.

Another example from the UK: We had a terrible fire in an apartment building a few years ago due to illegal, flammable cladding being used on the external walls. Turns out that use of flammable cladding was pretty widespread and it all has to be removed and replaced.

The buildings were constructed by private interests, they are owned by private interests and the rents are collected by those private interests. So who pays the bill? The taxpayer, naturally.

Once again we have corporations unable to perform their functions without massive cash injections (£3.5 billion) from the state, which again should make us question the propaganda that, left to its own devices, the market is efficient.

It is efficient for short-term decision-making but woefully inept at making long-term decisions well, requiring handouts from taxpayers whenever things don't go perfectly.

I appreciate this culture of a market propped up by the state is very UK-specific. I expect in the US people would have gone to jail rather than been given massive piles of cash, although I also imagine people would have been left in flammable housing.

Another interesting one was Kahneman's study of stock traders. — Kenosha Kid

Stock traders?

Are you telling me that you have bought into the narrative that everybody who is successful is so because they were born into it? You are playing the ultimate victim card.

This isn't 18th and 19th century Europe. In the U.S., most people who are successful had to work their asses off (not counting the "some thing for nothing" sock market crowd).

You work your ass off, have half a brain, and you're probably going to do pretty well.