@JohanEmpa Everything is capitalism, unless it’s communism, so what’s better than capitalism isn’t the winning argument you might think it is. (Nor is it original. “There is no alternative” is Thatcher-speak.)

@aral so we agree that while regulated capitalism has some downsides, it is better than all existing alternatives?

Or which alternative do you prefer?

@JohanEmpa @aral

"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words."

Ursula K. LeGuin (obm)

@dgold @aral nice words. I definitely believe a new system can be invented. Going backwards to some kind of communism seems boring and wrong. But.

A hybrid of basic income and regulated capitalism would be interesting.

Naturally we should let robots do the work we don't want to do and they should get paid for their work. Then we tax them and that's how I would finance that basic income. Let's make it medium income so we have a good living standard and money left over

oh, wow, @aral, looks like you struck a nerve there. looks like hate bots and minions won't let that go undisputed, but at the same they're calling defeat, since they won't even try to argue the point, and go straight to ad hominem. 'grats!

@fm 3)🖕

@aral you have a way with words.

@aral
She has a point. Every now and then someone manages to traverse the board landing on community and chance, get 20000 every time they pass home and when they manage to get enough to buy one of the first row property become adamant that sheer luck has nothing to do with it.
@fm

@SylvainDe
In the US, 60% of all wealthy people were not born wealthy. 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the 3rd generation, and it's 95% by the fourth generation.

This is real information. This draws a picture of the real world. A witty quip with an analogy to a game that demonstrates a miniscule understanding of how it really works and only serves to reenforce ones own world view is not a picture of the real world.
@aral

@fm
And do you have the same stats for people below ... Say 35?

Also, you state that for wealthy people. Nice but it seems to me like the following:
Of all people who won the lottery, more than 70% paid 5[insert currency name here] for a ticket. To bee meaningful, you would need to add the percentage of the population sait wealthy people represent.
@aral

@fm @aral
To make sure I'm fair, I'm not saying effort has nothing to do with it also. To rise in the capitalist world you need connections and dedication. But connections come easy to some and are almost impossible to acquire if you come from a rural area or a segregated community.

@SylvainDe
This is a baseless claim. I know people that became better off than their childhood selves without connections. I know more people moving up in life from rural areas than from urban ones, and in rural areas than in urban ones.

Connections are not as important as education and aptitude, and there's some luck involved of course. People of West Virginia by and large aren't moving up, but it isn't because they don't rub elbows with the elites, it is because their education sucks. Texas in contrast is a very rural state and there used to be a saying that everyone from Texas is a millionaire.
@aral

@fm
Soooo would you say that if you came from west virginia you would need more luck to overcome what people from texas got by "birthing there"?

And to get back to the generation components. Would you say that overall, education gets better when you are a low income child or worse?

@aral

@fm @aral
If so, for the first part and worse ( at least in relation to upper revenue education) on the second. We seem to agree on the facts. The reasoning is another issue

@SylvainDe
I don't have a clue what you said here lol. I doubt anyone does. I agree, our reasoning differs dramatically.
@aral

@SylvainDe
Yes, being born where you're born, and in the family, community and culture you're born into is pure luck. So is being born into a wealthy family or a poor one. But you have to be competent to earn wealth and you have to be competent to keep it. If you're incompetent and born poor you probably won't build much of anything. If you're incompetent and rich you'll probably squander it. I'm not saying that anyone can overcome anything with sheer competence, but most people have the opportunities around them to build a life they'd be happy with if they use those opportunities wisely.

I'd say education is like any service, you get what you pay for. And I'd add to that, the public education system in the US is a grift and our poor aren't getting what we pay for. But I'll also point out that there was a time when you got no education at all unless you could afford it, or unless you were very driven to teach yourself.
@aral

@fm
We seem to agree on facts then.

So if you are young now, you get worse education than the earlier generation. Since property is something you either acquire or inherit, you did not inherit and, because of education deficit have a lot less opportunity to acquire.

Seems a lot like @aral 's original message. Maybe with less monopoly imagery and profanity.
@aral

@SylvainDe
I wouldn't say you get a worse education than the previous generation. There's more information availability to us today than there was to our parents. I'd say the onus is on you to learn, but that has always been the case, it is just more evident now.
@aral

@SylvainDe
How is age relevant here? Age is not a concrete demographic. People that are 35 will be 40 soon. Toddlers are broke, is that an injustice? People start their lives young, build them as they age, and if they're competent, they may build the life they want at some point in their adulthood. It is the nature of time.

What percentage of the population is rich can be relevant, but can also be misleading. "Getting rich" is not everyone's idea of success. Also, what percentage of people are successful can be dependent on the competence and education of the overall populace. There are a lot of variables, so many in fact that slapping a "percentage of people that are wealthy" on something doesn't really tell you much. It gets totally meaningless when you determine what "wealthy" means based on what percent of the population it is.

No, just knowing how frequently random persons cycle in and out of different classes is enough to demonstrate upward mobility.
@aral

@ew Oh, the irony, it hurts! 🤣

@edgaras
I would invest and pretend I how nothing to luck. That would allow me to explain that taxes are useless and people should do as I did.
@aral

@aral @alcinnz I relate with the feelings, what an awful game on its own with a sad story to boot.

@aral @zem Economic inequality increased sharply since at least 2008, people born after 2000 get the short end of the stick and complain, people born before 2000 criticize for being lazy and entitled even though the opportunity field shrinked since their own youth.

@hypolite @aral @zem I mean, millenials are born before 2000, but they are the people entering the work force and markets before three recessions of such scale that assets are basically unknown.

As a very rich millenial, almost all of my wealth is familial, and so many friends with good degrees are just... Unemployed or underemployed for years at a time

Successful millenials have shadow economies to support themselves

@zem @aral there isn't a connection. class warfare isn't real it's a marxist trick to get idiots to hand over their property.

@ew
That is also not entirely true! The problem that having wealthy parents improves your chances to get wealthy on your own is a matter of fact, and the big problem especially in fully free market systems as that means a lot of possible potential gets wasted because people don't get their fair chances!
@aral