Socialism? Capitalism?

[BrometheusBob.]

I don't see pure socialism or pure capitalism as ideal, but since socialism is getting smacked in the polls figured I'd put my vote in that column

[siablo14]

A mixture of both is best.

[////]

The distinction between the two is practically nonexistent anymore and was vague to begin with.

"Capitalism" is voluntarily ambitious people paying massive taxes to keep millions of freeloaders from rioting. They are held hostage by a high-fertility underclass. In the middle are the "betas" aka middle class, who support the underclass yet barely live differently from them.

With globalization this phenomenon has worsened dramatically and inhabitants of developed countries are simply expected to accommodate an endless stampede of unproductive criminals until complete irreversible replacement.

The more important distinction is identifying both capitalism and socialism as forms of Economic Determinism. Nationalism posits: What is short-term economic growth truly worth (the melting-down of Earth into a giant Walmart)? And whom ultimately benefits from this vague "growth" considering how many unique cultures and nations must be eviscerated on behalf of its acceleration?

[Furn]

Capitalism is like a game of Monopoly.

Everyone starts out all excited, thinking they are going to own a bunch of hotels on the blue and green ones.

Soon most of the players realise they are just making enough when they pass go to pay rent to the rich guys who got lucky and happened to land on Mayfair and Park Lane.

Then they have to start selling off their land and houses just get by and eventually one person owns it all.

[////]

Capitalism is like a game of Monopoly.

Everyone starts out all excited, thinking they are going to own a bunch of hotels on the blue and green ones.

Soon most of the players realise they are just making enough when they pass go to pay rent to the rich guys who got lucky and happened to land on Mayfair and Park Lane.

Then they have to start selling off their land and houses just get by and eventually one person owns it all.

And socialism is much the same. Every imbecile envisions themselves "pulling a fast one", landing some job counting boxes and being paid the same as a doctor. Then their dream comes true and they and the doctor are both making $0.33 an hour while government officials ascend to Godhood, in possession of all land and production.

The real difference between capitalism and socialism is social mobility. You can go from rags to riches back to rags in a single lifetime in capitalism. In pure socialism there are really only two tiers of existence and crossing the line between them requires armed brute force.

I am a nationalist and I oppose capitalism and socialism as independent principles because I oppose all economic determinism; but in their hypothetical pure forms, capitalism is clearly superior.

[BrometheusBob.]

And socialism is much the same. Every imbecile envisions themselves "pulling a fast one", landing some job counting boxes and being paid the same as a doctor. Then their dream comes true and they and the doctor are both making $0.33 an hour while government officials ascend to Godhood, in possession of all land and production.

The real difference between capitalism and socialism is social mobility. You can go from rags to riches back to rags in a single lifetime in capitalism. In pure socialism there are really only two tiers of existence and crossing the line between them requires armed brute force.

I am a nationalist and I oppose capitalism and socialism as principles because I oppose all economic determinism; but in their hypothetical pure forms, capitalism is clearly superior.

At least in principle. There are far fewer practical opportunities to attain riches than there are people willing to work hard enough to earn them.

[////]

No, in reality. Mobility is extremely high in "mostly capitalist" economies.

We talk about the "1%" endlessly but very few people actually look at the statistics.

Aside from medical doctors, almost nobody in the 1% stays there for more than a few years. Even rarer to spend their entire life there, and the idea of 3-4 generations of people all inheriting their way into the 1% is so statistically rare as to be a wive's tale. It's constantly changing.

Source: Data compiled by Prof. Hirschl/Cornell University

Ahhh but what about the Rothschild's, etc? Simple answer; they aren't dependent on any single economy or economic platform. Their wealth is so global that they've had their grubby paws in everything from Silicon Valley to the USSR.

[BrometheusBob.]

No, in reality. Mobility is extremely high "mostly capitalist" economies.

We talk about the "1%" endlessly but very few people actually look at the statistics. Aside from medical doctors, almost nobody in the 1% stays there for more than part of a single lifetime. It is very rare for a person to spend more than a year or two in the "1%", even rarer to spend their entire life there, and the idea of 3-4 generations of people all inheriting their way into the 1% is so statistically rare as to be a wive's tale.

Shift your 1% a bit wider and I bet the statistics will fail to hold up in favor of your argument.

Most children of rich people will go on to be very well off, even if they aren't super hard working. When you are at the top and you invest money properly it makes more money in returns than most people can reasonably earn, even if those people work very hard. You can also use money to influence decision making regarding how much you should have to pay in taxes etc in such a way as to favor retaining your wealth.

Similarly people at the bottom do not have an easy time moving up the ladder (past a certain amount anyway).

[////]

According to google the top 5% would require $166k/year. Literally anyone can achieve that without being part of some elite by surviving dental school, etc. How would that do anything but assist my argument? What little barrier there was to the 1% is completely erased for the 5%, which falls into the median for many common careers. Yet the amount is not nearly enough to establish some wealth dynasty either, and most people at that income level will have been poor during their education years. High mobility.

Do you have a source for "most children of rich people go on to be rich"? All of the statistics I've seen seem to show that a small minority of them go on to increase their family's net worth or even remain above average.

[BrometheusBob.]

According to google the top 5% would require $166k/year. Literally anyone can achieve that without being part of some elite by surviving dental school, etc. How would that do anything but assist my argument? What little barrier there was to the 1% is completely erased for the 5%, which falls into the median for many common careers. Yet the amount is not nearly enough to establish some wealth dynasty either, and most people at that income level will have been poor during their education years. High mobility.

Do you have a source for "most children of rich people go on to be rich"? All of the statistics I've seen seem to show that a small minority of them go on to increase their family's net worth or even remain above average.

How many positions are there in dental schools etc? I'll answer the question for you - not a very large number relative to how many people there are. If everyone was perfectly capable and tried really hard to get into the careers where earning $166k was feasible, most of them would get turned down. Not because they couldn't be successful dentists (or other high paying professions), but because there aren't enough opportunities to accommodate all capable people.

No one is suggesting there is 0 opportunity for mobility. Just that there isn't an opportunity for most.

Who said anything about increasing their net worth? I said will go on to be very well off themselves.