The rise of wealth inequality

admin: Why would you have to oppress the poor. Why can't they be happy that they live like kings making 1/10000 of what the wealthiest make? Would they really prefer to make 1/2 and live in squalor? If so I guess socialism is good, but if not they should push for a Laisse Faire system so that jumps in technology occur faster at the same rate as their standard of living. By the way, I think you're wrong that the poor would rather the rich make less money as opposed to having their standard of living raised. As far as gambling is concerned, clearly everyone cannot be winners but if somebody in the top 10% of the IQ range dedicates themselves to ut they can. For those with lower IQs thy can learn some computer coding for free and go to freelancing sites and make twenty an hour. As far as age restrictions and legality, it doesn't matter. There are ways around that. Gambling is illegal where I am at, but I still make money doing it in my part time. When I originally started in about 2004 and for I didn't even use a credit card. I made money in freeroll tournaments and took 2 years grinding a bankroll up to start making money in heads up matches. A creative kid could get their initial seed from starting a lemonade stand if they want to forego the 2 years, though they will likely have to keep it open to keep replenishing their bAnkroll until they gain the neccesary experience to be a good enough player to make money.

Hell their are 10 year olds who excel at internet marketing and make more than I do. There are a thousand options that will work in first world countries. As far as third world countries I suggest finding a good connection or leaving until their governments learn to stop accepting loans from world banks and learn that strict capitalism will turn them into a first world country.

Wylted: You'd have to oppress the poor to retain control of capital in times of social unrest. Poor always rise up against wealth inequality in the long term, and I gave many examples earlier. It's a sociological reality. If you're making a fraction of what the wealthiest makes then you're not living like kings, but rather the shadow of the wealthy. There is no correlation between meeting needs and happiness. Indeed no amount of material possessions makes people just content. So you can't ignore social and environmental factors on the way to profit and expect money to just eventually solve those problems. Money does have a place in solving problems, but this isn't it. If trickle-down economics worked, of course the poor would support it. The poor aren't stupid and so would rather seize the capital / means of production, or put it into public ownership, or support progressive economics. Telling the poor to just be content to be poor is a rather annoying line when much of your country is currently in poverty.

I've worked in internet marketing, both for myself and in an established marketing company. This is one industry I know very well. I assure you that even if you're unemployed, your social security is probably still worth more than that. Take one look at fiverr. There's adults there doing several hours work for $5. Many of those adults are in first world countries. That's the going rate for internet marketing. Indeed the only way it's profitable is if your country is so poor that the currency conversion is greatly in your favor. But that also contributes to the negative reputation of online internet marketing. People often hired me specifically so they could have somebody local to talk to.

admin: Live like kings relatively speaking ofcourse. If I'm having sex with beautiful women, eating well and have a roof over my head, why would I care if some billionaire is doing well for himself? And no I'm sorry history is not on your side. I can show a link between any economic problem right now and hell even environmental and social problems and some sort of interventionist policy. Before the FDA all food was basically grown and eaten locally but now all of it is controlled by 5 companies. Most banking was done by mom and pops until Glass Steagull etc. Ad nauseam

Also most people can't make money in internetarketing doesn't mean that a driven intelligent creative person can't for less inteligent people I reccomend programming

Wylted: The problem isn't having less companies, it's the accumulation of capital by a small number of people.

You'd care because self-actualization entails more than basic human needs being met.

Wylted: Same problem. I had many people from those fields ask me for work, too.

admin: Having a bunch of families owning and operating the banks and food markets in your area certainly does more towards self actualization than having all these people as corporate slaves working as cashiers and door greeters at walmart. That's what regulation has done. Destroy competition, so instead all of my neighbors being happy business owners, they are all corporate slaves having to drink 2 coffees, and 3 red bulls as well as pop some aderal just to get through the day.

admin: Yep there are unsuccesful people in all walks of life. Not sure why you keep pointing out there are losers and idiots in everything. The point is that people. An choose success if they want to, and giving them all handouts is just exacerbating their problem.

Wylted: Success is not a choice. I never saw anyone too lazy to work when I was in the unemployment office. What I saw was a lot of people hungry for a chance. I don't think it's fair to call them idiots, even as a generalization. To me that's victim blaming of a system wherein capital distribution, and thereby money-earning potential, is not equal.

Being bigger and cheaper certainly has been a benefit of globalization if you look at strict economic value. It's not regulation. There's no law forcing people to shop there. Nor do you even need loopholes. You just need access to capital to build a value chain which outcompetes the others on a free market. It's exactly the same, albeit on a smaller scale, without globalization. To me then those "corporate slaves" are products of a lack of regulation, not because of it. The clear and most obvious answer is to regulate to ensure decent wages and conditions.

admin: In America where it has never taken me an uneducated kid with a criminal history and who grew up having to starve more than 2 weeks to find a job, then yes not making money is a sign of either lazyness or stupidity. Either thing should be punishable by death anyway so that we can aid evolution a bit.

Wylted: Very absolute statement. I'm sure many in the Great Depression era would beg to disagree.

admin: We aren't talking about a point in time that is suffering from a depression because of economic interventionism (liberalism), though their is less opportunity because we do not have a Laisse Faire system, there is still massive opportunity.

Wylted: You said "never" and that's very absolute. Economic conditions change over time naturally. In good times it might be rare to not have a job for too long. In bad it is quite common.

Politicians have to avoid structural unemployment. I do not believe structural unemployment in the US is 0%. The nature of capital and switching costs virtually ensures that. At the same time politicians have to control the inflationary effects of employment. One of the problems is that most central banks are designed to reduce inflation - which is a damn good thing - but they have no incentive to care about employment figures. So taxes and even the currency itself becomes skewed to make it difficult to employ people. Without intervention you're counting on the market to do that for you. So you are saying the number of people who need jobs will always be lower than the number of jobs available, and everyone can just start working in them immediately.

EVEN IF that were tenable (which the data proves it isn't), technology reduces the number of available jobs over time while also increasing the size of the workforce. So you end up with this problem that gets worse and worse.

admin: Once the technology is in place we implement a national income, but we aren't in a position where we should do that yet, and when we are it will be conservatives who make the national income happen.

Wylted: I doubt it. Conservatives have been mocking progressives pushing for the gradual introduction of a national income for decades. They'll just be happy watching the poor suffer.

admin: No it was a conservative who first introduced the ideal. I can't remember who exactly, but I think it was Milton Friedman.

Hell you can only have a basic income in a conservative society because liberals support open borders

admin: admin says that he wants all private property be abolished. Well, this would include your ownership of this website. Don't you feel proud of all the work you've done?

Wylted: but I think it was Milton Friedman.
He advocated for a negative income tax that would be temporary for a switch to a laissez-faire society.
Hell you can only have a basic income in a conservative society because liberals support open borders
Milton Friedman was an advocate for open borders. Though, he believed that open borders was problematic with a welfare state.
Not many liberals support open borders.

boris7698: I don't think he said that. He said that private property is one of the factors for increasing wealth inequality, and abolishing it would be one possible way to fix that problem. He is mainly referring to private ownership of the means of production.