so if capitalism broke the barrier, then why is there still a huge separation between the rich and the poor? Why is that separation increasing? — Lif3r

Inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing about it is when the rich decide to collude and form monopolies, oligopolies and are in the bed together with the government. The US is very vigilant about consumer protection. The majority of goods in the US are available to the common Joe.

Relatively speaking, we are enjoying a period of downright amazing economic prosperity, that, unfortunately, has increased the inequality between the rich and poor. If you want to talk about debt, that could be an issue worth mentioning.

There are two things in the US that stand out in my mind as barriers to the poor. It's universal healthcare and college tuition.

The rich and the powerful versus the meek and the poor. Is this phenomenon not a cycle? — Lif3r

The cycle that once may have existed in Europe, has been addressed and broken in a manner of speaking by encouraging entrepreneurship, credit to the poor, and lending. This sort of issue blew up or created the 2008 financial crisis. Booms and busts will continue to exist; but, there are ways to hedge against these tendencies in the market.

Sure, but this doesn't equalize opportunity, and does not change the wage gap. — Lif3r

Structurally, I am in agreement that there's simply a structural advantage to being rich. It allows one to explore opportunities once unavailable to the common man. Wage gaps aren't an issue if you don't work in a corporate environment.

The thing about American democracy that you may or may not be getting at is the disproportionate amount of reward for taking risk. Europe and Asia don't really stand anywhere near this state of affairs as does America.

So, is that something you had in mind or am I making things up here?

Psychedelic Solipsism. — armonie

I like that, tell me more.

Depends where we are in the world. In my case, the US, has a pretty progressive tax code that allows one to recover from debt. Bankruptcy is also an option if one goes into too much debt.

hmm but I would have thought that the 'non-monetary' benefits wouldn't qualify as benefits at all for Thrasymachus in that the only benefit that would contribute to the attainability of a socially advantageous position would be money. — Yanni

So, just a point I want to talk about that is disputed and should not come off as factual:

-Thrasymachus is thought to be the mouthpiece for Spartan culture, which Plato held in high regard, and some argue that was a template for deriving the political structure of his Republic. Due to this "fact", it's thought that Socrates was coffering acceptance of their method; but, not outcome. Thrasymachus' point lives on to this day and many followers of the idealization of Plato's Republic (Third Reich, Islamic Republic, et all), think that he was right, and that might makes what is right. Yet, we are inherently driven to disagree with the outcome of his method (violence, bloodshed, war, etc.)

My two pennies.

@unenlightened, I'm sure you have something worth saying also? Please come out of your slumber and share edifying thoughts with us folk.

@Ciceronianus the White, here's your chance to expand or interact with a leading Stoic philosopher. Quite interested in your take on the philosophy of Stoicism.

First, thanks to the mod team and Professor Pigliucci for making the decision to come by. From a personal standpoint, I will focus on Stoicism out of my own interest in the field for some years.

===
Now, I don't think there is much doubt, within philosophical circles and if you track Facebook groups, that Stoicism is experiencing a revival in the public domain of discourse.

1. Therefore, why is Stoicism experiencing a revival for people nowadays?

a) Is it due to our way of living that is increasingly demanding our attention and foresight in regard to ensuring a safe and comfortable life of leisure and satisfaction? Perhaps, people are realizing that ensuring a safe and comfortable future, isn't always guaranteed no matter what action or amount of effort they put towards this goal. Therefore, are people deriving satisfaction from the negative visualization practices, that Stoicism propounds towards life itself?

b) Psychologically, what is appealing about Stoicism exactly? Is it its appeal to resilience, and enduring voluntary or too many involuntary discomforts that life may throw at us? Can this be characterized, as a selfish desire to become stronger, and if so, is this a botched understanding of Stoic philosophy?

c) Finally, from a religious standpoint, it seems that Stoicism is becoming lately, dare I say, a type of secular religion of sorts. Would you agree with this characterization, or not?

c.1 contextually an elaboration) Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus are icons to be followed in the minds of many. They are shining examples, of the very role models you talk about in your TED talk in Athens. It is fascinating, and perhaps, exclusive to philosophy in its appeal, that a Roman Emperor and a slave, both talked about the very same thing, the sort of existential disquietude that can plague many found to be alleviated by an appeal to virtue and concern with the good.
===

Just some stuff to think about. I also would love to see a discussion about preferred and dispreferred indifferents, but that may be too much to ask for.

Or more bluntly, same method, differing outcomes.

Yes, they converge here (and if I'm not mistaken the divergence is due to this very momentary convergence) in that one needs to be guided by the good to desire according to Socrates, contrary to what Thrasymachus desires for the sake of being "stronger", which can be understood as more competent.

Hope that made sense, it's been a while.

Profundity lays here!!

:grin:

They need that too. But, then again they are die-hard enlightened self-interest blokes.

You mean virtue signalling? Conservatives probably hate that concept more than 'entitlement' as of lately.

Would 10 people with 10mil each and 1 person with 10mil in terms of consumer demands compared to 10 people with 1mil each and 1 person with 10mil? If so, how and why? — I like sushi

Really Sushi? OK.

Let's assume the typical et ceteris paribus maxim here and assume nothing creative is being done with the net sum of 10 million. 10 people with a million dollars each are going to consume MORE than one person with 10 million.

Is there disagreement with the concept or wording thus far?

Well, then I should have been more specific and just said that the aggregate demand for goods produced by and for 10 consumers with 1 million each, would surpass the demand created by 1 person with 10 million.

A-ha!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45812-w

There was no mention of distribution here. I find it hard to fathom why you think one person with 10 million is a better consumer than 10 people with 1 million each??

Better than nothing. And, if the idea pays off (being reasonable here, like patenting a new way to open a canned beer) then your set for life.

Appreciated! :ok:

Apart from my shit you see here, not really.

If your looking for structural tendencies on my part have a look at the reading group threads to the left on the categories section. I quite enjoyed the Tractatus reading group I helped organize. Towards the end it was a delicacy following that thread.

I think a simple example would be wearing a T-shirt of Nike, and going around promoting their product with no real monetary compensation.

It's hypothesized that dreams are the manifestation of naturally occurring DMT within the brain. It's also thought that if the brain produces DMT, then people with psychotic disorders produce too much of it within waking hours or that stress precipitates such states of mind.

So, yeah, I'd say it's as real as calling pain receptors opioidergic, immunomodulatory pertaining the endocannabinoid system or that pertaining cognition-nicotinic...

But I don't get paid for being a commodity. What's up with that?

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

Oh yeah, I am trying to squeeze out a fresh meme now and then. But I like anonymity too. A nice compromise is launching a meme and see a few people assimilate it into the personality / system.

I want to be contagious. And yet I was never really here. — Eee

A contagious meme! Dennett would approve.

I don't think it matters much, as long as the conversation is permitted to continue. I never pay attention to the categories. Like never. — Eee

Hmm, but I like being a philosophical celebrity, don't you? xD

Aww, the mods are in a foul mood it seems. Once again, moved to The Lounge.

Can I like, build a tent or something and prosper here?

And what one doesn't do is perhaps more important than what one does. — Eee

Very Wittgenstian. I like! :up:

Ooo, 2.5 Trillion!

Nice contrast. I do like H&M. Lots of there stuff is too...something. But occasionally they really nail it, and it's a good price. But I scoff at diamond stores. Even Apples stores. My older iphones are good enough. And yet I need the monied to keep buying the latest. I depend on other lifestyles for my own. — Eee

"Fashion" is a concept I never did entirely get. The whole industry is probably worth maybe a trillion.

All true. But, caveat... credit, borrowing, venture capitalism comes to save the day!

'a fool and his money are soon parted.' — Eee

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?

Ha. Well I've never been much of a coin collector, though I am good at spending them slowly. I love grocery stores. As mundane as they are, so much of one's philosophy is manifest there. — Eee

Hmm, grocery stores are the best, as are malls. You can see the invisible hand working its magic thereabouts.

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. — absoluteaspiration

Typically, if you hire someone who isn't at the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum, as an illegal immigrant, they tend to demand things that they haven't yet earned, which is actually a good thing contrary to the conservative sentiment of hatred against 'entitlement'... Instead, such behavior shows confidence and competence for the job to be performed. Paying someone more than they think they ought to earn is also a strategic tactic utilized by employers to decrease turnover, which can be costly in a job environment that requires a lot of training.

So, my point is, that neo-classical (pay the least you can get away with), isn't always the most rational thing to do.

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'.

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?

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

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?

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?