>people whose only applicable skill is owning money

>>1110807
>People who are luckier than me are worse than me for reasons
Stop being a bitter cunt.

>>1110811
>it's okay to have a system where success is based on random events like being born to the right family instead of personal initiative and hard work

>>1110811
>defending the Jew

Indoctrinated faggot

>>1110819
Personal inititive and hard work doesnt lead to success? What the fuck why did I work my ass off to build my own business then? Oh shit thanks for letting me know I guess I should shut it all down, sell my house, car and boat and sit here and whine all day. I appreciate the words of wisdom senpai.

>>1110819
>people shouldn't be allowed to provide for their children

I have no idea how you could possibly conceive of a government situation where rich people won't raise their kids different from poor people.

Even if you're arguing for 100% inheritance tax, it's not as if the only reason rich kids are well off is because they inherited it. Their parents still paid for their ivy league education and gave them connections to succeed in business.

Please tell me how you propose to remedy this "problem"

>>1110827
depends on where you live, I'm assuming you are American, not all countries allow hard work to lead to success. America is great though.

>>1110833
Social mobility is lower in America than most developed countries. Rags to riches is pretty rare, actually. >>1110827 will probably never leave middle class.

>>1110841
If you have the right incentive and intelligence, I think it is very possible. How many people are to blame for their own economic stagnation?

>>1110845
Possible =/= easy or likely

The fact is that we know social mobility has declined. So you either take the position that it's because it's now more difficult to do it or that people are now dumber and lazier.

There's evidence for the former, not for the latter.

>>1110841
Waaaah waaaaah

File: 1449602729520.png (687KB, 698x1000px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 698x1000px

>>>/pol/

Edgy faggot nice Jew money memeing

Reminder they are better than you at being scientists, doctors, lawyers, entertainers etc as well as financiers/accountants like you mentioned

Jelly as fuck you're not part of the true master race? You can try to improve yourself or you can continue to blame all your problems on dA jooos

:^)

>>1110819
>it's okay to have a system where success is based on random events

Literally you being alive is by pure chance thanks to that ONE sperm out of 200 million that fertilized the egg

>inb4 im a special snowflake because i said so

>>1110851
b -but muh american dream :^(

>>1110852
Is anything in my post implying I'm complaining? Maybe you should scroll up and see my other posts like >>1110830 and >>1110811.

Stating facts is not complaining, even if those facts might hurt the validity of your fairy tale.

>>1110857
> Literally you being alive is by pure chance thanks to that ONE sperm out of 200 million that fertilized the egg

Hey did you know earth-sun distance was 149 600 000 km ?

File: image.jpg (16KB, 558x564px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 558x564px

>>1110855

>>1110862
>I don't want to live in a world where people are better off just because they're born in a rich country

>>1110857
>b-but I should be rich and never have to work! They owe it to me just for existing!

>>1110851
It's both anon, you can't just ascribe it to one or the other, but it is still much better than other countries. I grew up in Europe and they have a much worse social divide between their classes, and I think mobility is much harder to accomplish.

>>1110858
and yes I do have muh American dream, fail or succeed, I will take personal responsibility.

>>1110865
No-work or 4h work per week society would actually be pretty easy to imagine.

Transition from this one would be kind of hard tho.

>>1110868
>you can't just ascribe it to one or the other
Cultural explanations for economic change are rarely confirmed by data and only subscribed to by sociology faggots and /pol/tards.

The fact is we have a clear correlation between wealth distribution and social mobility. As wealth is less evenly distributed, the barriers to escape social class become higher.

Also, what part of Europe? Because if it's Western, I'm sure you could just google research on it. This isnt' some nebulous thing. We know this sort of shit.

>>1110868
> Taking responsibility for society's failures

Here you go guys, triumph of capitalism right here.

>>1110873
What I meant was that people are often to blame for their own economic misfortune, weather it be frivolous spending or bad business decisions.

I agree that social mobility has been getting worse, I tend to blame that on certain governmental policies, what is your take?

>>1110874
You are implying that my success or failure is out of my control, personal responsibility is not a negative thing anon.

>>1110807
I came here to get away from /pol/. Keep /pol/ threads where they belong.

>>1110887
I agree that there's a lot of personal responsibility in maintaining your social class. People who drop from middle to low often make poor decisions rather than are just fucked over by the system.

I think that government policies may contribute. Low income tax probably doesn't help, but I think the fact is that the economy is simply becoming increasingly capital-intensive rather than labor-intensive. It makes it increasingly easy for people who own capital to turn it into tons of money and increasingly difficult for middle class folks to obtain enough money via labor to buy into that capital.

>>1110895
>The economy is simply becoming increasingly capital-intensive rather than labor-intensive.
>It makes it increasingly easy for people who own capital to turn it into tons of money and increasingly difficult for middle class folks to obtain enough money via labor to buy into that capital.
DING DING DING DING

This guy knows exactly what's up.

>>1110895
Interesting take, but I don't think higher income tax would solve the problem, whether it be only for the higher class or not, I just don't see how a higher income tax would help the poor by taking from the wealthy and it definitely wouldn't help if you raised income tax on the lower class.

To answer your earlier question, I came from Germany, and the little research I did on google suggests that there is higher economic mobility in many European countries. I would disagree with that because of personal experience (anecdotal I know) but there are many factors in German way of life that stratify society much worse than America I believe, one example is the school system deciding whether a child attend low, middle, or higher educational institutions at grade 4.

>>1110887
> You are implying that my success or failure is out of my control, personal responsibility is not a negative thing anon.

Yes, that's exactly what I am implying.

If you try to fit 100 people in a 10m3 cube, now matter how hard everybody tries, not everybody fill succeed to enter in the cube.

Now people succeeding will probably tell you how hard they fought to get in the cube and how they "deserved" it but, before doing that, they accepted rules.

Do you think all people not succeeding should "take responsibility from it" ? Were they just too lazy ? Did they not fight well ? Did they just fail randomly ?

Or maybe the rules were just unfair ?

>>1110914
Your analogy is interesting, but life isn't a cube that you are born into, especially in America.

It may be so for other countries, where you are born into a life of inescapable poverty, but definitely not in America, I have met too many people who have proven otherwise.

>>1110912
I think taht the only way we could really tackle the problem (if we agree it's a problem, which in reality people don't) without trying to restructure the global economy and technological progress (which is bad) is through redistributive policies.

I wouldn't be surprised if within the next century, if the trend continues and the gap just continues to widen exponentially, countries around the world don't start taxing capital gains on the top earners tremendously while providing some sort of minimum income for the population.

I just can't foresee any situation where the trend reverses itself naturally. As things become more automated, business will necessarily substitute labor for capital at increasing rates.

I could completely be missing some variable, though.

>>1110926
Well I guess I should travel more :)

Where I'm from, people tend to blame the system when something goes wrong.

>>1110933
I would disagree, personally I think wealth isn't finite, we can create more. Instead of using the government to take other peoples money, which I don't think is moral, the goal should be to create more wealth, hopefully that would help to reverse things.

Another thing, do you mind if I ask you what your political leanings are and which candidate you are looking at in the coming election?

>>1110948
Sure, traveling sure does put a lot of things in perspective, where I live now many people seem to be dissatisfied with America as well. I just don't see why, this country is amazing and is certainly under appreciated by many.

There is a reason so many people try to come here from other countries.

If you don't mind either, would you care to answer
>>1110952 that question?

>>1110911
Please tell us how to how to do it if it is so easy and why can't you do it or anyone else here.

Why are we all turning our capital into losses?

>>1110952
>we can create more.
That's the thing. With a more capital-intensive economy come more wealth creation, but said creation is only confined to capital-holders. Yes, wealth will be created, possibly at unprecedented rates, but only for the people already wealthy. I really can't see how you could tackle such a situation without re-distributive policies.

I have a degree in economics and political science, which gives me exactly enough knowledge on the subjects to know i know jack shit about either, but everyone else apparently knows even less. So basically, I don't agree with anyone politically. Honestly Kasich is my favorite, though I may be biased being from Ohio. At this point I'm just hoping for Trump vs. Hillary because those debates will be the stuff of legend. At the end of the day, most decisions a president makes are determined by external factors and they can only really pass 2 or 3 major pieces of legislation in their presidency.

So in all likelihood I'll not be voting, because the difference between a Trump or Hillary presidency would probably actually be relatively marginal. Even though Trump is posturing like an extreme right-winger, there's very little chance it's legit and his personal beliefs are probably still center-left.

File: 1432814295236.png (60KB, 700x566px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 700x566px

>People who fall for /pol/ Jew memes

>>1110952
> using the government to take other peoples money, which I don't think is moral

Do you think it is "more moral" that it is possible for a corporation to buy, say, a pasta factory at 9:00AM, fire half the employees, put a new manager at the head, sell it for more profit at 11:00AM then rinse and repeat with whatever kind of business they could get their hands of ? Same goes for exploiting any kind of loophole the capitalist system has created ?

Those people don't create wealth.

as to
>>1110958
I'm not really concerned by those elections by I follow them from afar, I'm curious to see what the "anti-system" candidates will be able to accomplish. I kind of despise Hilary and Cruz.

>>1110965
So you don't think some of the wealth being created will eventually end up in the economy?

It sounds like trickle down, and many people have an aversion to such an idea, but I think wealth will end up in the hands of normal people. I just don't see where else it could go, what would be the point of hoarding the money?

>>1110965
Do you think it's possible to even see Re-Distributive Policies talked about in any serious way in America? Honestly I think it would be nearly impossible for something like a basic income to even be mentioned in mainstream politics without being laughed at. I think that the USA's bad history with Russian Communism has destroyed any chance of policies even remotely like to be uttered.

>>1110807
>poor people who think they are better than rich people

Kek. This board is full of you worthless pathetic losers. Can't wait till you swallow a shotgun in your double wide mobile home. White and nigger trash.

>>1110978
I think the world's bad history with socialism cucks and communist cry babies is why nobody wants those beta systems to destroy their nations.

>>1110807

What if I earned my money by working and then I grew my wealth while working by investing wisely?

>>1110981

Why would a homeowner kill themselves?

They've won the game, pretty much.

>>1110977
>what would be the point of hoarding the money?
Creating family dynastys (I.E. the Koch brothers) and generally making sure only people you like get your money. There are plenty of ways that the super wealthy can keep their money from getting into the hands of anyone they'd rather not have it.

>>1110977
Trickle down has been pretty debunked at this point.

>what would be the point of hoarding the money?
They do it now. Why wouldn't they in the future?

I dunno bro. I guess you're optimistic, but I don't see why the rich would suddenly start spreading their wealth around.

>>1110978
No. Right now it's not feasible. But like I said, within the century, if the trend at the top percentile remains upward and the trend in the middle remains flat, there will probably be a breaking point. Especially considering how popular Bernie is with young people. I don't see the next generation being anything but even more fiscally liberal.

>>1110974
Well, I didn't say anything about the morality of your scenario, which wouldn't affect the other situation, I personally don't like either.

>>1110978
I think we should learn from the USSR's mistakes, those policies ruin countries and economies.

>>1110985
>think trailer trash own their trailers

Yall niggers don't even own your roaches.

>>1110819
>A system

No, that's the state of nature. And good luck building a fair system. We've been trying for well over 400 years now.

>>1110993
I have a similar feeling, it seems like we're headed towards either a huge change politically and socially in the next 10 years that we just don't see coming for whatever reason but on the other hand I could easily see things staying how they are for another 70+ years if I'm being more realistic.

>>1110819
also
>It's okay to have a system where parents have no incentive to work for their children's future

>There's a perfect system that won't be corrupted within a matter of months by people whose sole ambition is to defend their privilege from the system

>>1110999
We have a fair system already. Do you think their is a system out there where everyone is happy and equal kek? This is as good as it gets.

>>1110995
You can be more re-distributive without the state owning the means of production. Keep in mind taxes are marginal, so there's never not incentive to make the next penny. The argument just becomes at what point does that incentive become to small to try, adn I think it's fair to say right now we're far from it.

>>1111002
Americans have been saying this since I was a baby.

>>1111009
Well, I haven't got the chance to talk to some people there but the scandinivian system seems to be closer to that than western europe or USA.

>>1110993
Yeah, I have seen some of the former eastern bloc countries and studied the separation of Germany. They had it a lot worse than I do. I just don't see the point in pessimism when there is lot's to be happy about.

>>1111009
>>1111002
I don't think Bernie and his solutions will work for America, the consequences of such policies can be observed in many unsuccessful countries throughout history.

>>1110995
But I think that's exactly the problem, we've only seen a handful of communist/socialist states rise up to really be on the world's stage, the USSR never had a sane leader and for some reason people don't take that into account when talking about why it fell. Obviously pure straight up communism/socialism won't ever work but I think there are PLENTY of things about the systems that would work mixed with other political ideals and mechanics.

>>1111019
I think that even if Sanders gets into office he won't act on alot of what he's talking about right now.

>>1111013
That's pretty much what I was afraid of.

>>1111019
It's not pessimism. It's realism.

And Bernie has some bad ideas and some good ideas just like any politician.

As >>1111017 points out, the Scandinavian system is certainly far to the left of the US, but not really similar to the USSR at all and much more successful. And no. I'm not saying that we should model ourselves after Sweden. I'm saying that thinking of it in terms of "Communism vs. Capitalism" is myopic. Even thinking of it as a continuity between two points is myopic. In reality there are so many different combinations of policies you could try.

>>1111111

Making it in America is literally being lucky enough to know the right person who gets you a foot into the door. You will never make it alone. You got to know successful people to be successful. That's literally the hardest part. Once you know a handful of people and made your first million, the rest comes easy.

Honestly, this problem is so easily solved if the current-form capitalism shills and true capitalists would just stop being faggots

Get rid of the family unit, have everyone be raised by the state, and have a choice of which institutions to bequeath your wealth when you die. Simple

>>1110855
good goy

>>1110807
OP thinks rentalship should be banned

File: Screenshot_2016-02-25-16-45-59.png (226KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1080x1920px

>>1110807
Just for you, bug-a-boo.