Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

 

starting at 3:25 up to 4:18

 

When you're poor, you get only 1 chance.

when you're rich ( like george bush ) you get chance after chance after chance after chance.

 

Equal opportunity vs equal outcome, something Stefan and many others have been talking about before.

How would this be different in a "real" capitalist free market society?

Wouldn't it still be true that the rich can have chance after chance after chance after chance, while the poor get only 1 up to few chances?

Posted

idk why you cite Bush as a member of "the rich" and not as a member of "the state". If he'd run a private enterprise and failed, then he'd be bankrupt, just like any other guy who runs a private enterprise and fails.

 

Also not sure why you use quotation marks for the word "real". is there an argument behind that or just a way to implicitly discredit the idea of a free market without actually bringing forth some arguments?

 

But to give a maybe more accurate example: If Paris Hilton started a business and failed, do you think investors would voluntarily give her more money for a new business?

Posted

idk why you cite Bush as a member of "the rich" and not as a member of "the state". If he'd run a private enterprise and failed, then he'd be bankrupt, just like any other guy who runs a private enterprise and fails.

 

Also not sure why you use quotation marks for the word "real". is there an argument behind that or just a way to implicitly discredit the idea of a free market without actually bringing forth some arguments?

 

But to give a maybe more accurate example: If Paris Hilton started a business and failed, do you think investors would voluntarily give her more money for a new business?

 

This completely misses the point.

ok, take Paris Hilton then.

Her father is rich and can allow his daughter to fail as long as he will allow it, meaning she will have more opportunities then the average person.

 

If i have 100 million, then i can try to start a 1 million dollar project 100 times ( as in 100 different projects ), significantly increasing my odds of success.

I can also choose to enjoy my life untill the age of say 40-45 and only then decide to do something with which i hope to make a few bucks, a poor/poorer person most certainly does not have that luxury and even more certainly does not have those odds of success.

Posted

ah sure, I fail to see the problem though. If a father wants to throw away his money can't he do that? I mean, there's always unequality when it comes to where/how you're being born. Nothin can funadmentally change that. But if a guy is born with no legs, you don't complain about "all the people being able to run" and how unfair that is for some, but you help to poor guys without legs as best as you can, if you really care about them.

 

I also don't see how it's implicit that the poor only get 1 chance or fewer. Getting chances has to do with the skills you bring to the table and not the money you've saved up or the income you have fundamentally. If you start a business and fail, you still have gotten a lot of experience out of it (idealy) and other people will value that and hire you as a result of that. So, can you maybe elaborate a bit on what you mean with "the poor only getting one chance"?

Posted

well if there can be by definition no equality (cause you can always find something not-equal) then how is this a problem if capitalism exactly? And how would not-getting an education be a result of capitalism anyway?

 

and just by the way the poor (and even the blacks) were all a lot more educated (in terms of being literate for instance) in the 1900's before public education took over and forced people into schools (see John Taylor Gatto's research in that matter for instance). So if your problem is with education, then the state is pretty much the reason why people are uneducated these days and not free markets.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.