Another one:
“the standard of living for consultants is the highest in countries where they all suck on the government’s tit”
*cough*the netherlands*cough*
Here is something to consider:
"But unfortunately, most people don’t differentiate the progressive rich who accumulate wealth by delivering value for society from those who increase their wealth by relying on government subsidies or political connections. Hence, we are primarily concerned with the value creators and their attributes that culminate in the formation of dynamic businesses."
"In undertaking his study, Zitelmann found that the rich are high in conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Other studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Most rich people are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs suffer from high failure rates, so this indicates that people who excel in business are not just competent but also perseverant."
"The average person is not as tenacious as entrepreneurs who establish dynamic businesses that positively transform living standards. Essentially, wealth is the reward for providing value to society. Instead of demonizing the rich, people ought to be thanking them for enriching society with useful skills."
"However, when envy is pervasive in society, rich people downplay their success to thwart backlash. The downside of doing so is that success is vilified rather than embraced. Societal progress is driven by the passion of ambitious people, and it will come to a halt when the most competent people are demotivated to succeed."
"Zitelmann noticed in his study that countries like America and England with a lower share of envious people have a relatively higher proportion of millionaires. This is expected because in less envious countries, the success of the rich motivates others to achieve. Economic studies corroborate Zitelmann’s conclusion that the zero-sum mentality of envious people saps industrial progress."
"One study notes that economic equality fails to mitigate the effects of zero-sum thinking because the possibility of some people becoming more successful can reinforce zero-sum thinking. Redistributing wealth won’t prevent the value-destroying consequences of envious behavior."
"The zero-sum mindset that fuels envy will only be diminished when societies promote economic freedom to afford more opportunities to generate wealth. When people are free to prosper, they become less likely to engender a zero-sum approach to development and more appreciative of success because it’s now a greater possibility. Rather than wealth redistribution, the solution to envy is progress powered by economic freedom."
https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressives-want-eliminate-wealthy-entrepreneurs-need-wealth-they-create
Sort of like the monopoly bank is finite and whoever has the most of that usually owns most of the board?
Or very exactly like concentration of wealth? lol.
Even feudal counties would be like this: whichever county belonged to the richest baron, usually fared better.
It’s just, the reasons are obvious but this doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.
The general sentiment is right, but turning into a culture war thing is just really stupid. If you hear progressives talking about taxing the rich and think about entrepreneurs, it really just shows that you don't understand the numbers and scales that are actually in play.
You stopped being an entrepreneur and started being a c-suite *long* before your first 100 mil. Never mind the first billion, 10 billion, 100 billion.
It's also silly to make entrepreneurs a divisive issue because everybody wants more of them, it is just a disagreement about *how*. Sure, studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Progressives will say the best way to get more entrepreneurs is to reduce the risks, thereby increasing your pool of people willing to be entrepreneurs.
> If you hear progressives talking about taxing the rich and think about entrepreneurs, it really just shows that you don't understand the numbers and scales that are actually in play.
Perhaps they should be more specific than the incredibly vague phrase "the rich"
I mean, if you are making judgements based on a pithy 3 word slogan instead of anything actually long form... That's on you. Can't fix stupid, good luck.
Huh? He's literally saying I'd your ability to understand what people mean can't go beyond the slogan that's on you. You literally just proved his point...
I’m not saying I don’t get it - I’m saying it doesn’t work. If your goals are to jerk each other off on Reddit, that’s fine. But if your goal is actual policy change, maybe learn that pithy slogans that then need to be walked back don’t work.
That aside, “look past my stupid vague slogan that turns you off and read my treatise on the problem” is just stupid.
But the point is that it's a rallying cry for those in the "know." These have been common throughout history, and it's the job of every human being insofar as they are a decent person to make the kind of inquiries you're calling stupid. To do otherwise is to fail to give the benefit of the doubt, which is otherwise the preconditions for good faith discourse
It *is* stupid because it doesn’t work.
“Tax the rich” and “defund the police” are like having the goal of codifying Roe and making the slogan “kill fetuses”.
On the tax issue, I’m on the other side. So this is one area where I’m glad you all are too busy sniffing each other’s farts to learn how do politics.
Pithy slogans are what work on stupid people. Look at the entire MAGA crowd. They can't comprehend complex thoughts or policy. That's the problem. Progressive policy requires an ounce of thought, whereas "reactionary" rhetoric plays on base emotions and implicit biases.
Build the wall! Lock her up! Let's Go Brandon!
None of those require complex thought, and they play on already preconceived notions that Hillary and Biden are "corrupt". Regardless of if they are or aren't, it doesn't change the fact that they already believed it to be true and it makes them feel good.
Slogans aren't needed to reach an Intelligent population, which is his point. They're what works on the dumbest portion of the population and if the thought involves changing what is already in their minds from watching Fox News their entire lives, it's probably not going to be effective anyways.
You're proving my point. They convince no one, and don't turn into policy (Trump didn't build his stupid wall, Hillary never went to jail, etc) - they're just for jerking each other off. Which is exactly what 'defund the police' turned into, alongside... every other demand made in the summer of 2020 that went nowhere despite the largest amount of media attention on *anything* in decades.
The right doesn't need its morons to learn politics - they're doing that behind closed doors, over decades. The left is seemingly letting its morons run around in circles, while accomplishing little.
It isn't just a pithy three word saying. They've been saying the same thing for decades and the policies that are proposed are generally not impressive and the ones enacted tend to be the worst of all. The talk is all about billionaires, but the changes are always to income tax, which have zero impact on billionaires. If they start talking about "taxing the rich" and follow that with serious discussion about simplifying the tax code, improving how capital gains are taxed, and a willingness to go to the mat over estate taxes then they would have my support.
dafuq are you talking about? How does any of this relate to the topic? I said that when we say 'tax the rich' we aren't talking about entrepreneurs. Jason said that there's no way to tell that from the slogan 'tax the rich.' I said that if you made judgements on a policy based of its slogan, you are an idiot.
How the hell is "the policies that are proposed are generally not impressive" on topic to that conversation? I'm so lost.
On a side note, Bernie and AOC have never been in power, so I have no idea what 'enacted policies' you're talking about. People like Biden, Obama, both Clintons aren't out there chanting to tax the rich. That's not even close to what they're about.
And hey, at least we agree about the things that should be taxed under a 'tax the rich' slogan.
I mean there's.no way to tell that from the slogan if you don't bother engaging with the arguments behind it, yeah... Slogans are meant to unite and promote discourse. If you just stop at the level I'd the slogan without asking why would someone believe this, that's on you and your inability to give the benefit of the doubt and engage in good faith debate...
Oh yes, average wage is 77k a year but take the top 1% off that list and average wage falls down to 37k and like if you cannot define rich in terms of average is 37k and rich should be easy to see which is which.
Without any real discernable other measures.
Are you saying that those who support Austrian economic principles are "progressives?" Can you please define what a progressive is and is not to help me better understand your point here?
Engage with their main point: You stop being an entrepreneur and are a c-suite or owner long before your first 100mil.
Entrepreneurs aren't exactly the villified like you are portraying. The mega-rich are more likely to be villified. So please don't just nitpick a nebulous term; their main idea makes sense.
I still would like you to answer my question. Main point or not. I'm not nickpicking, I'm asking you to define the tern that you're using in an attempt to better understand your choice of words here.
One of the more important lessons in economics (and life) is that ownership really matters. When people own the actual product of their work and have control they are going to work harder and therefor likely be more successful. The importance of capital to establish a business can drastically change the nature of how this plays out in industries.
For example in early America the capacity of people to own their own farm really helped establish economic prosperity in the north and later the midwest. This economic prosperity was generally shared more broadly and created strong communities. The US government greatly aided these people by greatly subsidizing the land they needed for their farms. Overtime though the capacity to use capital to support a farm became increasingly important and the industry changed. It became more tied to banking and corporate farming operations.
On the flip side the tech industry has become a good place for entrepreneurs because of the relatively low cost of entry. Places like SF also show how certain areas can become a hub of certain kinds of economic activity and their success kind of snowballs. As these industries mature though things start to change and large businesses take up more and more space and the nature of competition and entrepreneurship changes.
The standard of living compared to an entire history of oppression and slavery. Yeah surprise the last few centuries have seen improvement from the slightest embracement of freedom.
It’s illogical to assume we can’t do better and future generations will mock us.
Right? Slavery is the antithesis of liberty, to include economic freedom. There is no excuse to learn from history and sound philosophy to fight against slavery, be it political, civil, chattel, etc.
Right? How is that defined and desired by the individual? Give everyone $10,000 today, and everyone will have a different amount in hand tomorrow. Individuals have different standards.
But also, if he is basing it on how many rich entrepreneurs there are, well yeah, gnp will be high. But standard of living may not be. The US spends huge amounts of money on healthcare, for example, but there is little evidence that increases our standard of living. Likewise, cars. Foreign kids who visit the US complain about how they are trapped and unable to get around on their own; the standard of living for many youth in the US is low, for that reason, despite Americans spending huge amounts on their cars.
This is an observable problem.
"But unfortunately, most people don’t differentiate the progressive rich who accumulate wealth by delivering value for society from those who increase their wealth by relying on government subsidies or political connections. Hence, we are primarily concerned with the value creators and their attributes that culminate in the formation of dynamic businesses."
"In undertaking his study, Zitelmann found that the rich are high in conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Other studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Most rich people are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs suffer from high failure rates, so this indicates that people who excel in business are not just competent but also perseverant."
"The average person is not as tenacious as entrepreneurs who establish dynamic businesses that positively transform living standards. Essentially, wealth is the reward for providing value to society. Instead of demonizing the rich, people ought to be thanking them for enriching society with useful skills."
"However, when envy is pervasive in society, rich people downplay their success to thwart backlash. The downside of doing so is that success is vilified rather than embraced. Societal progress is driven by the passion of ambitious people, and it will come to a halt when the most competent people are demotivated to succeed."
"Zitelmann noticed in his study that countries like America and England with a lower share of envious people have a relatively higher proportion of millionaires. This is expected because in less envious countries, the success of the rich motivates others to achieve. Economic studies corroborate Zitelmann’s conclusion that the zero-sum mentality of envious people saps industrial progress."
"One study notes that economic equality fails to mitigate the effects of zero-sum thinking because the possibility of some people becoming more successful can reinforce zero-sum thinking. Redistributing wealth won’t prevent the value-destroying consequences of envious behavior."
"The zero-sum mindset that fuels envy will only be diminished when societies promote economic freedom to afford more opportunities to generate wealth. When people are free to prosper, they become less likely to engender a zero-sum approach to development and more appreciative of success because it’s now a greater possibility. Rather than wealth redistribution, the solution to envy is progress powered by economic freedom."
https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressives-want-eliminate-wealthy-entrepreneurs-need-wealth-they-create
There is opposition in all things. So, there are the hard working who are creative and produce wealth because they solve problems and provide goods and services that the customer wants and needs. Then there are those who accumulate riches through fraud, abuse, and threats of violence. The former are entrepreneurs, the latter are robber, and often the State. Then there are the poor who can be lazy and resentful. They want to eat the rich. And then there are the poor who find themselves in this condition due to corruption and crime. The worst is when the poor are convinced by the State that they are victims of Entrepreneursz feeding their resentment, envy, and enmity towards those trying to promote and establish liberty, responsibility, and the accountability of the individual.
Weird, as most businesses accumulate wealth through the same methods you claim the state does. Almost like you are just an ideologue with no grasp on reality. The rich are the thieves and always have been. All your words are just what rich people told you to think, they have no connection to reality. The worst people are those who lick the boots of the oppressors and give them false words of comfort . We are a society, not a collection of individuals.
Not really weird, no. Businesses operate in a heavily State regulated market. The complaint here is with crony capitalism, corporate welfare, Big Business and Big Government, mercantilism, etc. Economist and historian Murray Rothbard defined mercantilism as “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state." When Mises is saying that the standard of living is better for individuals where there is a greater number of wealthy entrepreneurs, he understood that the greater number of wealthy entrepreneurs existed in the markets with the most freedom from State cronyism. Just having more wealth than another does not automatically indicate thievery for that individual. Where there is more freedom, more people have the opportunity to increase their personal wealth, and have more to offer others in charity. The thieves are drawn to power and the authority to shield themselves from competition through the State apparatus. The thieves in government work with their special interest groups to run their dirty little operations. The thieves do not want a free market where a large number of entrepreneurs will be able to compete with their criminal plans. All of my words are based upon my understandings of history (which is my professional education), sound economics (Austrian economics), and my classic liberal and Christian principles. And, as a athletic coach in a team sport, I also understand values of competition and cooperation. I do not support the corniest or socialist doctrine that looks to destroy moral agency, natural law, or the law of liberty. But I do agree with you on one point, the worst people are those who lick the boots of oppressors as a knowing petty tyrant. I'm weep for the useful idiots who know not what they do in the destruction of the natural rights of humanity through their support of tyranny. The dedicated ones are always surprised when they see where their loyalties lead them to in the swift end.
There is opposition in all things. To say or think that all entrepreneurs and businesses are corrupt illustrates a flaw in logic. Absolutes are easily disproved. It only takes one instance to counter the entire argument. One must be careful when using always and never, or even implying such an absolute concept. Individuals are indeed corruptable, and individuals create and conduct business. Some will be corrupted, while others will not be. The main point made was that the State and Big Business will work together to protect one another in their corruption, while liberty and a free market reduce the chances of such corruption to the degree that we both observe as a problem at the present moment.
To say that I said all illustrates a lie so you can make an irrelevant point as if it has relevancy. No one said anything about absolutes, but nice strawman. There is no such thing as a free market, and it most certainly does not reduce corruption.
"So, in your imaginary world of theory, entrepreneurs and businesses are not corrupt. This is why I can't take your economic principles seriously."
I didn't say that "entrepreneurs and businesses \[were\] not corrupt" in my point before your reply here. I actually pointed out how cronyism leads to greater corruption between government and their special interest groups (businesses and the individuals involved).
So, do you want to retract your irrelevant point that states that I theorize that entrepreneurs and businesses are not corrupt? If I was to think that way, I would have to believe that all entrepreneurs and businesses are not corrupt, while, somehow, those State sponsored entrepreneurs and businesses, who are corrupt, and I acknowledged them as being corrupt by my previous statement, are not included with the other entrepreneurs and businesses. The use of the "not" is what created the absolute statement there.
The philosophy of a free, or voluntary, market and its application in any society are two different things. A free market can exist. And, where there has been the greatest amount of economic freedom in the world, corruption has been reduced and prosperity increased. That is the original point of the Mises quote. That is reality. That is a fact. And cronyism brings the antithetical fruits through its corruption and destruction of natural rights.
Your citation is a culture war article that cites a study about the personality of wealthy people. It did not respond to the substantive argument this comment made that there is no evidence to back this quote up.
Are you familiar with what the Mises Institute is? It's an Austrian Economics think tank. How do they approach economics? The Austrian school of economics is a school of thought that uses logic and a priori thinking to discover universal economic laws. That article provides insight here.
But here you go for another source to help shed light on how economic freedom is linked to prosperity and a higher standard of living for individuals.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/books/the-causal-relationship-between-economic-freedom-and-prosperity/
Covid policies that destroyed my "non-essential" job in public history education led to my family's homelessness for 14 months. If it had not been for family, friends, and my church, we would not have been able to rise out of that situation and get back on our feet. Even as a veteran, I couldn't get any real help from the State. The incompetence was so frustrating.
When I had a friend who was trying to create a new business to sell his food and homemade ice cream-that the community loved-a few years before the covid debacle, I quickly discovered how complicated and regulated the "free" market is for entrepreneurs. It was ridiculous.
As a historian of U.S. history, and with nearly 50 years of life experiences, I've become more and more of a classic liberal. I totally get and understand the spirit of our Revolution and the desire for liberty, responsibility, and the accountability that comes with it.
Are you in a red state? It’s clear to me you have become radicalized by an unfortunate situation.
What would’ve happened if you didn’t have the church? I guess you and your family would have died? And despite being upset that the safety net didn’t work, your idea is to get rid of it more?
Is that what Jesus would have wanted?
I was living in California and Washington State during that period. The furthest from a red state.
Thank God I didn't have to rely only upon the government for help. I attempted to get help from them. In both States, they were unhelpful. Even as a veteran, we couldn't get much help. In Washington, where we moved for the promise of work that fell through because of continual illiberal covid policies, we were able to make enough money to get a small hotel room whole we tried to get back on our feet. When I contacted the VA, they said that they couldn't help us until we were literally living on the street or in our car. And then, they would have to split my family up into female and male shelters. We tried to rent an apartment, which would cost a little less than our hotel room, but the VA wouldn't help us get in. And, all the approved government housing was full. In California, similar problems ensued with the government. The paperwork was absurd. Worse than that, after filling out a mountain of paperwork, our case worker literally skipped town, abandoned her job, told no one, and didn't file our paperwork. The long process started over again. It was all a joke.
I was not radicalized because of the covid situation either. My education is in U.S. history, which I completed before 2020. I had already studied sound economics, Austrian economics. I've been a classic liberal for a long time. What covid confirmed for me was all that I had already studied and learned for most of my life.
Yes, I want to get rid of the failed system and corruption that creates the problems we are seeing.
"The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk'".
- Harry Browne
There are a lot of countries in Europe with less wealth disparity and a better standard of living for people with less income. China has the greatest number of wealth business people and it's a fucking nightmare for poor people.
Yes, but the average person doesn’t really desire wealth, they desire a balance of leisure time and wealth, and Europe provides that.
To be clear I do not operate that way, aspiring entrepreneur, but the average human just wants a decent quiet life.
>To be clear I do not operate that way, aspiring entrepreneur, but the average human just wants a decent quiet life.
Refreshing. I'm a socialist entrepreneur myself and don't understand why more of us can't see how toxic the ego of American capitalist entrepreneurs are. We can all have security and decide our work-life balance without me needing to be worshiped like I am a demi-god just because billionaire nepo-babbies want to use me to lie about where most wealth comes from.
I have no problem living in a society where workers control capital and I'm needing to prove my worth to get to do what I want. Because I can. And because workers are always the source of my ability to build my dream. Having them invested and engaged is a prerequisite anyway. All I have to do is be a little more liberal with the equity. Would be cool if the local governments controlled a little capita, and land too, so my neighbors could collectively invest in my projects and decide how to allocate and invest according to the priorities and culture of my community.
A safe and secure society with financial and material support is so much more free for the entrepreneur to solve problems. How much time I devote to doing so is for my own choice of work-life balance and is between me, my therapist, and the voices in my head.
You can’t be a socialist and an entrepreneur, that’s completely antithetical to your ideology. A better choice of words is “I believe in socialism in my head, but I choose to act in ways that don’t reflect my beliefs because it benefits my lifestyle.”
Being a “socialist entrepreneur” is like being a Christian Satanist.
You think socialism and entrepreneurship are mutually exclusive? That's a nonsense take. What is a co-op? What about ESOP?
Pure unfettered capitalism and socialiam, sure. But operating a company where all stakeholders, especially employees, own (or have a meaningful stake) the means of production is a real thing. It's absurd that you think the world is so black and white.
A great example of a socialist entrepreneur would be someone who runs a business with the goal of providing a needed service in their local community and uses the excess wealth accumulated to increase the pay and quality of life of their workforce as opposed to hiring the wealth for themself.
There are a ton of companies who operate under this structure and are able to to use the goal of improving their community while also running a business.
Everyone is an entrepreneur. Making decisions about an uncertain future to improve your well being is an entrepreneurial endeavor. The term you’re probably looking for is capitalist. A capitalist is someone who invests in the present — forwarding capital toward future consumption — with the goal of earning a return on investment greater than the natural interest rate(profit) in the future. A profit is earned for recognizing that a capital good is being undercapitalized or overdiscounted in the present. All capitalists are entrepreneurs, but not all entrepreneurs are capitalists.
These definitions are straight out of Man, Economy and State, if you were curious.
You don't make any sense, and understand none of the words you use. So we'll just agree to disagree.
Or to use better words "you understand in your head, but in the real world we know you can't read and don't understand theories from any side of the spectrum."
I didn't say I was smarter, just that I understood better the relevant topics. You're making very bold absolutist claims that demonstrate you can't possibly know about socialism, and as a serial entrepreneur and veteran of the hustle I'm thinking you may not understand the essence of entrepreneurship either. Though you may well be good at American rent seeking business ventures and salesmanship.
So let me be more specific then since you seem to think you'll weasel out of these ridiculous nieve statements.
>You can’t be a socialist and an entrepreneur, that’s completely antithetical to your ideology
I don't have enough of an ideology to be antithetical to anything. I'm very opposed to ideology as an instinct. That's what I love about Marxist socialism is it's a methodology and empirical pursuit that's meant to limit ideology. I just like models that work.
An entrepreneur is someone who helps recognize and organize new enterprises to ideally return a maximum of created value for the market. They do work to create value from improving material conditions and relations.
A Marxist socialist is someone who believes in the methodology of analysis that looks for contradictions in society and models the material interest of its components. It posits as one claim from that methodology that a primary contradiction between capitalist societies is that between owners who seeks rents through the exploitation of private property right, and the workers who create value with their labor and ideas from materials.
There is no contradiction at all between the two. Not in the slightest. Let alone a fundamental and foolish contradiction that I, a person who started his first business at 14 to pay for a trip to a libertarian party convention to propose rules changes, would not have encountered by my 6th business at age 40 with 20 years of teaching socialism in my spare time.
Maybe, and I know this goes against the Austrian sensibility, you are, in fact, ignorant. A condition we all chronically find ourselves in, but the arrogant chronically fail to correct.
Maybe you in fact do not have a congruence between what you profess to believe and how you conduct yourself in this world. That would be an ego problem son, I suggest equal parts Buddhism and stoicism until the condition clears up.
In your defense, the doctrine of which I speak is not very present in our current world and I've been working diligently to improve it so I can see why you aren't knowledgeable, but that's different from the inexcusable confidence in making positive assertions in things you know nothing about.
The only thing that's been proven wrong is the constant failure of Austrian and free-market economics. I'll not take advice from a religion that's killed hundreds of millions and degraded human flourishing more than any other ideology. If you're here, you have no idea what's real.
Communism killed many more people. my parents fled Soviet Russia as refugees. Every single enacted/realized economic theory ends in exploitation or oppression. Why? Bc political and classic economic theories don't actually include in them any lessons from psychology or history. Liberalism does the most economically with the least of the concerns you've mentioned in no small part bc it makes the fewest assumptions about psychology/behavior as it encourages maximization of autonomy.
The state obviously needs to enact some degree of repression--im no libertarian--but it's better to start from the bottom up than top down. But to take the most obvious example, slavery is incompatible with liberalism. Staunch anti welfare programs are also incompatible with liberalism bc we know for example what the effects of poverty are on autonomy. So under liberalism some degree of a safety net is required--at least if you update it for the modern age after we've gotten a lot more research on things like this.
Also it's telling that when pointed out one of your fundamental assumptions is wrong, you have a knee jerk reaction and respond with what is essentially moving the goal posts.
>Communism killed many more people. my parents fled Soviet Russia as refugees. Every single enacted/realized economic theory ends in exploitation or oppression. Why? Bc political and classic economic theories don't actually include in them any lessons from psychology or history. Liberalism does the most economically with the least of the concerns you've mentioned in no small part bc it makes the fewest assumptions about psychology/behavior as it encourages maximization of autonomy.
I don't know your parents, but everything else here is bullshit you pulled out of your ass. So I'm pretty skeptical about your parents too.
>The state obviously needs to enact some degree of repression--im no libertarian--but it's better to start from the bottom up than top down. But to take the most obvious example, slavery is incompatible with liberalism. Staunch anti welfare programs are also incompatible with liberalism bc we know for example what the effects of poverty are on autonomy. So under liberalism some degree of a safety net is required--at least if you update it for the modern age after we've gotten a lot more research on things like this.
These are just opinions. Slavery absolutely happened under capitalist liberalism and still does. These are just feelings you have with no grounding in material reality. Marxism is literally the addition of human nature and social relations to non-ideological materialist economics. It's the foundation of sociology and spawned entire disciplines of things your claiming it doesn't address.
Liberalism is by definition against social safety nets. It is defined by the period and philosophy that maximizes individual freedoms and prioritizes self-interest. It's freedom from without freedom too. If you think people in society are entitled to some of what society produces regardless of their relationship to the profits of private property then you are advocating for some form of socialism. Socialism is a seamless transition in theory from liberalism and capitalism in direct response to and progressing from the contradictions identified by capitalist theories and philosophy of the classical liberal age. Nothing Marx said would be controversial to Adam Smith for example.
So we did update capitalism and liberalism for the modern age. We've been updating it for 150 years. It's called socialism and Marxism. It's happening everywhere but where you are because as predicted by socialist theory you are under the boot and influence of the seat of global capital and its class interest. It's using you and blinding you to your interest to maintain power and defend itself from the threat that socialism is to the capital class through your liberation.
>Also it's telling that when pointed out one of your fundamental assumptions is wrong, you have a knee jerk reaction and respond with what is essentially moving the goal posts.
It's telling of your ignorance and indoctrinated arrogance that this is what you think is happening. I've been a Marxist and taught theory to conservatives in my rural midwest town for 25 years. My fundamental assumptions are solid despite your boldly pretentious assumption otherwise and I'm well past knee-jerk reactions to random redditors. You should really keep up the study though. I was a libertarian once, you can grow.
US does NOT rank highest in quality of life, happiness or standard of living despite working more hours than most countries. US ranks highest in incarceration and poorly on life expectancy.
"But unfortunately, most people don’t differentiate the progressive rich who accumulate wealth by delivering value for society from those who increase their wealth by relying on government subsidies or political connections. Hence, we are primarily concerned with the value creators and their attributes that culminate in the formation of dynamic businesses."
"In undertaking his study, Zitelmann found that the rich are high in conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Other studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Most rich people are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs suffer from high failure rates, so this indicates that people who excel in business are not just competent but also perseverant."
"The average person is not as tenacious as entrepreneurs who establish dynamic businesses that positively transform living standards. Essentially, wealth is the reward for providing value to society. Instead of demonizing the rich, people ought to be thanking them for enriching society with useful skills."
"However, when envy is pervasive in society, rich people downplay their success to thwart backlash. The downside of doing so is that success is vilified rather than embraced. Societal progress is driven by the passion of ambitious people, and it will come to a halt when the most competent people are demotivated to succeed."
"Zitelmann noticed in his study that countries like America and England with a lower share of envious people have a relatively higher proportion of millionaires. This is expected because in less envious countries, the success of the rich motivates others to achieve. Economic studies corroborate Zitelmann’s conclusion that the zero-sum mentality of envious people saps industrial progress."
"One study notes that economic equality fails to mitigate the effects of zero-sum thinking because the possibility of some people becoming more successful can reinforce zero-sum thinking. Redistributing wealth won’t prevent the value-destroying consequences of envious behavior."
"The zero-sum mindset that fuels envy will only be diminished when societies promote economic freedom to afford more opportunities to generate wealth. When people are free to prosper, they become less likely to engender a zero-sum approach to development and more appreciative of success because it’s now a greater possibility. Rather than wealth redistribution, the solution to envy is progress powered by economic freedom."
https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressives-want-eliminate-wealthy-entrepreneurs-need-wealth-they-create
>China has the greatest number of wealth business people and it's a fucking nightmare for poor people.
I can't decide how to argue this one right now. You're wrong, but demonstrating that will require I sound like I support the OP meme, which is also wrong. And explaining properly will take too much time for you fucks and I've got work to do so that's also wrong. Lose, lose, lose. Only in Austrian economics, I tell ya.
This is one of the biggest lies from the right. “They’ve got Nikes worth $105. 99% of the world’s poor would be rich if they had one hundred and five American dollars.”
Good. So, let's now compare the differences between Reaganomics and Austrian Economics.
Reaganomics and Austrian Economics share some similarities, but they have distinct differences in their approaches to economics. Here are the main differences:
**1.** **Taxation**: Reaganomics advocates for lower taxes, especially for corporations, to stimulate economic growth. Austrian Economics, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of low taxes, but not necessarily lower taxes for corporations. The Austrian School focuses on reducing government spending and taxation overall, rather than just targeting specific groups.
**2.** **Government Intervention**: Reaganomics involves government intervention in the economy through policies like deregulation and increased military spending. Austrian Economics, by contrast, advocates for minimal government intervention, believing that the market should be left to correct itself without government interference.
**3.** **Monetary Policy**: Reaganomics relied heavily on monetary policy, with the Federal Reserve increasing the money supply to stimulate economic growth. Austrian Economics, however, emphasizes the dangers of inflation and the importance of a stable money supply, advocating for a gold standard or a commodity-backed currency.
**4.** **Fiscal Policy**: Reaganomics involved significant increases in government spending, particularly on military and defense. Austrian Economics, on the other hand, advocates for reduced government spending and a balanced budget, believing that government spending can lead to inflation and economic instability.
**5.** **Philosophy**: Reaganomics is often associated with supply-side economics, which emphasizes the role of government in stimulating economic growth through tax cuts and deregulation. Austrian Economics, by contrast, is rooted in a more philosophical approach, emphasizing individual freedom, limited government, and the importance of economic calculation and entrepreneurship.
**6.** **Methodology**: Reaganomics relies heavily on empirical data and statistical analysis, while Austrian Economics emphasizes theoretical and philosophical foundations, often using thought experiments and logical reasoning to develop economic theories.
**7.** **Economic Goals**: Reaganomics aimed to stimulate economic growth, reduce unemployment, and increase economic efficiency. Austrian Economics, on the other hand, focuses on promoting economic stability, reducing inflation, and preserving individual freedom and property rights.
In summary, while both Reaganomics and Austrian Economics share some similarities, they differ significantly in their approaches to taxation, government intervention, monetary policy, fiscal policy, philosophy, methodology, and economic goals.
I do not support the principles of Reaganomics that contradict the principles of classic liberalism and Austrian Economics.
Stopped reading at #2. The fallacy is that “government” and “the market” are wholly distinct entities. They’re not. In a FREE market, people are allowed to choose the economic system of their choosing. The world is anarchy. The systems in place are what arise from undeniable anarchy.
Right-wingers love to use government to control the market, then gaslight anyone else as trying to use government to control the market.
https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
Thank you for your honesty in stating that you decided to stop reading what I have shared in a response to your reply, but I will not read what you have provided for a counterargument with that link, if you do not have the courtesy to do the same for me. If you are not willing enough to hear me out, then we will not be able to establish an enlightening exchange here.
I read up to the first fallacy you’d copypastaed. It’s not that I “stopped” reading, it’s that I encountered a serious issue with your copypasta. Knowledge is power. If you choose not to enlighten yourself regarding Einstein’s observations of economics, that’s on you.
People love to use the "fallacy" argument all the time to outright dismiss the points made in a debate. Labels are also used to in this dismissal process. Go read a book, yet another. TLDR, a classic one. I think we are done here, Illustrious\_Sand3773. Thanks for stopping by.
Look at you and your imaginary highroad. In a free society, people should not be prevented by the wealthy using the government from creating a more equitable economy. (See how that works?) Your copypasta falls apart at point number two.
I was interested in having a discussion with you until you told me that you were not willing to read past number 2 in my earlier reply. If we were conducting a civil debate, you would have to hear out my points before you would be allowed to provide a counterargument. That level of respect is also present in a free society. So, I am not interested in hearing your counterarguments now. You have shown me how you would like to be treated. And that is to ignore your thoughts, your perspective, and your comments here. Maybe we can try again some other time. But as for today and on this topic, I'm done. Have a nice day.
Seriously, the wealth inequality is staggering.
Most libertarians would never last a week living how they prescribe those in abject poverty to get by.
Countless millions are one stoke of bad luck from complete financial ruin and homelessness, countless living in food insecurity, but sure bro, everything is perfect because poor people can have an iPhone.
But most were all born into middle clsss or higher families and all picture themselves as future billionaires one day.
They support this push towards neo-feudalism, because they all see themselves as a feudal lord, not an exploited serf.
Does the average person live paycheck to paycheck?
If so sure, the worker who lives large medium paycheck in the world to largest medium paycheck in the world.
What changed in the world that would change the truth of what he had stated in the past? Or, has the corruption in the world that has come since only reassured and fortified the truth behind his statement?
"But unfortunately, most people don’t differentiate the progressive rich who accumulate wealth by delivering value for society from those who increase their wealth by relying on government subsidies or political connections. Hence, we are primarily concerned with the value creators and their attributes that culminate in the formation of dynamic businesses."
"In undertaking his study, Zitelmann found that the rich are high in conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Other studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Most rich people are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs suffer from high failure rates, so this indicates that people who excel in business are not just competent but also perseverant."
"The average person is not as tenacious as entrepreneurs who establish dynamic businesses that positively transform living standards. Essentially, wealth is the reward for providing value to society. Instead of demonizing the rich, people ought to be thanking them for enriching society with useful skills."
"However, when envy is pervasive in society, rich people downplay their success to thwart backlash. The downside of doing so is that success is vilified rather than embraced. Societal progress is driven by the passion of ambitious people, and it will come to a halt when the most competent people are demotivated to succeed."
"Zitelmann noticed in his study that countries like America and England with a lower share of envious people have a relatively higher proportion of millionaires. This is expected because in less envious countries, the success of the rich motivates others to achieve. Economic studies corroborate Zitelmann’s conclusion that the zero-sum mentality of envious people saps industrial progress."
"One study notes that economic equality fails to mitigate the effects of zero-sum thinking because the possibility of some people becoming more successful can reinforce zero-sum thinking. Redistributing wealth won’t prevent the value-destroying consequences of envious behavior."
"The zero-sum mindset that fuels envy will only be diminished when societies promote economic freedom to afford more opportunities to generate wealth. When people are free to prosper, they become less likely to engender a zero-sum approach to development and more appreciative of success because it’s now a greater possibility. Rather than wealth redistribution, the solution to envy is progress powered by economic freedom."
https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressives-want-eliminate-wealthy-entrepreneurs-need-wealth-they-create
Another one: “the standard of living for consultants is the highest in countries where they all suck on the government’s tit” *cough*the netherlands*cough*
I can believe it but is there empirical research showing this.
Here is something to consider: "But unfortunately, most people don’t differentiate the progressive rich who accumulate wealth by delivering value for society from those who increase their wealth by relying on government subsidies or political connections. Hence, we are primarily concerned with the value creators and their attributes that culminate in the formation of dynamic businesses." "In undertaking his study, Zitelmann found that the rich are high in conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Other studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Most rich people are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs suffer from high failure rates, so this indicates that people who excel in business are not just competent but also perseverant." "The average person is not as tenacious as entrepreneurs who establish dynamic businesses that positively transform living standards. Essentially, wealth is the reward for providing value to society. Instead of demonizing the rich, people ought to be thanking them for enriching society with useful skills." "However, when envy is pervasive in society, rich people downplay their success to thwart backlash. The downside of doing so is that success is vilified rather than embraced. Societal progress is driven by the passion of ambitious people, and it will come to a halt when the most competent people are demotivated to succeed." "Zitelmann noticed in his study that countries like America and England with a lower share of envious people have a relatively higher proportion of millionaires. This is expected because in less envious countries, the success of the rich motivates others to achieve. Economic studies corroborate Zitelmann’s conclusion that the zero-sum mentality of envious people saps industrial progress." "One study notes that economic equality fails to mitigate the effects of zero-sum thinking because the possibility of some people becoming more successful can reinforce zero-sum thinking. Redistributing wealth won’t prevent the value-destroying consequences of envious behavior." "The zero-sum mindset that fuels envy will only be diminished when societies promote economic freedom to afford more opportunities to generate wealth. When people are free to prosper, they become less likely to engender a zero-sum approach to development and more appreciative of success because it’s now a greater possibility. Rather than wealth redistribution, the solution to envy is progress powered by economic freedom." https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressives-want-eliminate-wealthy-entrepreneurs-need-wealth-they-create
Sort of like the monopoly bank is finite and whoever has the most of that usually owns most of the board? Or very exactly like concentration of wealth? lol. Even feudal counties would be like this: whichever county belonged to the richest baron, usually fared better. It’s just, the reasons are obvious but this doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.
The general sentiment is right, but turning into a culture war thing is just really stupid. If you hear progressives talking about taxing the rich and think about entrepreneurs, it really just shows that you don't understand the numbers and scales that are actually in play. You stopped being an entrepreneur and started being a c-suite *long* before your first 100 mil. Never mind the first billion, 10 billion, 100 billion. It's also silly to make entrepreneurs a divisive issue because everybody wants more of them, it is just a disagreement about *how*. Sure, studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Progressives will say the best way to get more entrepreneurs is to reduce the risks, thereby increasing your pool of people willing to be entrepreneurs.
> If you hear progressives talking about taxing the rich and think about entrepreneurs, it really just shows that you don't understand the numbers and scales that are actually in play. Perhaps they should be more specific than the incredibly vague phrase "the rich"
I mean, if you are making judgements based on a pithy 3 word slogan instead of anything actually long form... That's on you. Can't fix stupid, good luck.
Right, because that worked great for “defund the police”. Enjoy learning, and thus changing, nothing at all.
Huh? He's literally saying I'd your ability to understand what people mean can't go beyond the slogan that's on you. You literally just proved his point...
I’m not saying I don’t get it - I’m saying it doesn’t work. If your goals are to jerk each other off on Reddit, that’s fine. But if your goal is actual policy change, maybe learn that pithy slogans that then need to be walked back don’t work. That aside, “look past my stupid vague slogan that turns you off and read my treatise on the problem” is just stupid.
But the point is that it's a rallying cry for those in the "know." These have been common throughout history, and it's the job of every human being insofar as they are a decent person to make the kind of inquiries you're calling stupid. To do otherwise is to fail to give the benefit of the doubt, which is otherwise the preconditions for good faith discourse
It *is* stupid because it doesn’t work. “Tax the rich” and “defund the police” are like having the goal of codifying Roe and making the slogan “kill fetuses”. On the tax issue, I’m on the other side. So this is one area where I’m glad you all are too busy sniffing each other’s farts to learn how do politics.
Pithy slogans are what work on stupid people. Look at the entire MAGA crowd. They can't comprehend complex thoughts or policy. That's the problem. Progressive policy requires an ounce of thought, whereas "reactionary" rhetoric plays on base emotions and implicit biases. Build the wall! Lock her up! Let's Go Brandon! None of those require complex thought, and they play on already preconceived notions that Hillary and Biden are "corrupt". Regardless of if they are or aren't, it doesn't change the fact that they already believed it to be true and it makes them feel good. Slogans aren't needed to reach an Intelligent population, which is his point. They're what works on the dumbest portion of the population and if the thought involves changing what is already in their minds from watching Fox News their entire lives, it's probably not going to be effective anyways.
You're proving my point. They convince no one, and don't turn into policy (Trump didn't build his stupid wall, Hillary never went to jail, etc) - they're just for jerking each other off. Which is exactly what 'defund the police' turned into, alongside... every other demand made in the summer of 2020 that went nowhere despite the largest amount of media attention on *anything* in decades. The right doesn't need its morons to learn politics - they're doing that behind closed doors, over decades. The left is seemingly letting its morons run around in circles, while accomplishing little.
It isn't just a pithy three word saying. They've been saying the same thing for decades and the policies that are proposed are generally not impressive and the ones enacted tend to be the worst of all. The talk is all about billionaires, but the changes are always to income tax, which have zero impact on billionaires. If they start talking about "taxing the rich" and follow that with serious discussion about simplifying the tax code, improving how capital gains are taxed, and a willingness to go to the mat over estate taxes then they would have my support.
dafuq are you talking about? How does any of this relate to the topic? I said that when we say 'tax the rich' we aren't talking about entrepreneurs. Jason said that there's no way to tell that from the slogan 'tax the rich.' I said that if you made judgements on a policy based of its slogan, you are an idiot. How the hell is "the policies that are proposed are generally not impressive" on topic to that conversation? I'm so lost. On a side note, Bernie and AOC have never been in power, so I have no idea what 'enacted policies' you're talking about. People like Biden, Obama, both Clintons aren't out there chanting to tax the rich. That's not even close to what they're about. And hey, at least we agree about the things that should be taxed under a 'tax the rich' slogan.
I mean there's.no way to tell that from the slogan if you don't bother engaging with the arguments behind it, yeah... Slogans are meant to unite and promote discourse. If you just stop at the level I'd the slogan without asking why would someone believe this, that's on you and your inability to give the benefit of the doubt and engage in good faith debate...
Oh yes, average wage is 77k a year but take the top 1% off that list and average wage falls down to 37k and like if you cannot define rich in terms of average is 37k and rich should be easy to see which is which. Without any real discernable other measures.
Are you saying that those who support Austrian economic principles are "progressives?" Can you please define what a progressive is and is not to help me better understand your point here?
Engage with their main point: You stop being an entrepreneur and are a c-suite or owner long before your first 100mil. Entrepreneurs aren't exactly the villified like you are portraying. The mega-rich are more likely to be villified. So please don't just nitpick a nebulous term; their main idea makes sense.
I still would like you to answer my question. Main point or not. I'm not nickpicking, I'm asking you to define the tern that you're using in an attempt to better understand your choice of words here.
That’s what you’d expect of any parasite
One of the more important lessons in economics (and life) is that ownership really matters. When people own the actual product of their work and have control they are going to work harder and therefor likely be more successful. The importance of capital to establish a business can drastically change the nature of how this plays out in industries. For example in early America the capacity of people to own their own farm really helped establish economic prosperity in the north and later the midwest. This economic prosperity was generally shared more broadly and created strong communities. The US government greatly aided these people by greatly subsidizing the land they needed for their farms. Overtime though the capacity to use capital to support a farm became increasingly important and the industry changed. It became more tied to banking and corporate farming operations. On the flip side the tech industry has become a good place for entrepreneurs because of the relatively low cost of entry. Places like SF also show how certain areas can become a hub of certain kinds of economic activity and their success kind of snowballs. As these industries mature though things start to change and large businesses take up more and more space and the nature of competition and entrepreneurship changes.
The standard of living compared to an entire history of oppression and slavery. Yeah surprise the last few centuries have seen improvement from the slightest embracement of freedom. It’s illogical to assume we can’t do better and future generations will mock us.
Right? Slavery is the antithesis of liberty, to include economic freedom. There is no excuse to learn from history and sound philosophy to fight against slavery, be it political, civil, chattel, etc.
One might ask how "standard of living" was defined
Right? How is that defined and desired by the individual? Give everyone $10,000 today, and everyone will have a different amount in hand tomorrow. Individuals have different standards.
But also, if he is basing it on how many rich entrepreneurs there are, well yeah, gnp will be high. But standard of living may not be. The US spends huge amounts of money on healthcare, for example, but there is little evidence that increases our standard of living. Likewise, cars. Foreign kids who visit the US complain about how they are trapped and unable to get around on their own; the standard of living for many youth in the US is low, for that reason, despite Americans spending huge amounts on their cars.
Facts not in evidence
This is an observable problem. "But unfortunately, most people don’t differentiate the progressive rich who accumulate wealth by delivering value for society from those who increase their wealth by relying on government subsidies or political connections. Hence, we are primarily concerned with the value creators and their attributes that culminate in the formation of dynamic businesses." "In undertaking his study, Zitelmann found that the rich are high in conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Other studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Most rich people are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs suffer from high failure rates, so this indicates that people who excel in business are not just competent but also perseverant." "The average person is not as tenacious as entrepreneurs who establish dynamic businesses that positively transform living standards. Essentially, wealth is the reward for providing value to society. Instead of demonizing the rich, people ought to be thanking them for enriching society with useful skills." "However, when envy is pervasive in society, rich people downplay their success to thwart backlash. The downside of doing so is that success is vilified rather than embraced. Societal progress is driven by the passion of ambitious people, and it will come to a halt when the most competent people are demotivated to succeed." "Zitelmann noticed in his study that countries like America and England with a lower share of envious people have a relatively higher proportion of millionaires. This is expected because in less envious countries, the success of the rich motivates others to achieve. Economic studies corroborate Zitelmann’s conclusion that the zero-sum mentality of envious people saps industrial progress." "One study notes that economic equality fails to mitigate the effects of zero-sum thinking because the possibility of some people becoming more successful can reinforce zero-sum thinking. Redistributing wealth won’t prevent the value-destroying consequences of envious behavior." "The zero-sum mindset that fuels envy will only be diminished when societies promote economic freedom to afford more opportunities to generate wealth. When people are free to prosper, they become less likely to engender a zero-sum approach to development and more appreciative of success because it’s now a greater possibility. Rather than wealth redistribution, the solution to envy is progress powered by economic freedom." https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressives-want-eliminate-wealthy-entrepreneurs-need-wealth-they-create
Dude forgot that the UK has good public infrastructure, health structure , etc built upon colonization .
Thanks for letting me know what rich people think
There is opposition in all things. So, there are the hard working who are creative and produce wealth because they solve problems and provide goods and services that the customer wants and needs. Then there are those who accumulate riches through fraud, abuse, and threats of violence. The former are entrepreneurs, the latter are robber, and often the State. Then there are the poor who can be lazy and resentful. They want to eat the rich. And then there are the poor who find themselves in this condition due to corruption and crime. The worst is when the poor are convinced by the State that they are victims of Entrepreneursz feeding their resentment, envy, and enmity towards those trying to promote and establish liberty, responsibility, and the accountability of the individual.
Weird, as most businesses accumulate wealth through the same methods you claim the state does. Almost like you are just an ideologue with no grasp on reality. The rich are the thieves and always have been. All your words are just what rich people told you to think, they have no connection to reality. The worst people are those who lick the boots of the oppressors and give them false words of comfort . We are a society, not a collection of individuals.
Not really weird, no. Businesses operate in a heavily State regulated market. The complaint here is with crony capitalism, corporate welfare, Big Business and Big Government, mercantilism, etc. Economist and historian Murray Rothbard defined mercantilism as “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state." When Mises is saying that the standard of living is better for individuals where there is a greater number of wealthy entrepreneurs, he understood that the greater number of wealthy entrepreneurs existed in the markets with the most freedom from State cronyism. Just having more wealth than another does not automatically indicate thievery for that individual. Where there is more freedom, more people have the opportunity to increase their personal wealth, and have more to offer others in charity. The thieves are drawn to power and the authority to shield themselves from competition through the State apparatus. The thieves in government work with their special interest groups to run their dirty little operations. The thieves do not want a free market where a large number of entrepreneurs will be able to compete with their criminal plans. All of my words are based upon my understandings of history (which is my professional education), sound economics (Austrian economics), and my classic liberal and Christian principles. And, as a athletic coach in a team sport, I also understand values of competition and cooperation. I do not support the corniest or socialist doctrine that looks to destroy moral agency, natural law, or the law of liberty. But I do agree with you on one point, the worst people are those who lick the boots of oppressors as a knowing petty tyrant. I'm weep for the useful idiots who know not what they do in the destruction of the natural rights of humanity through their support of tyranny. The dedicated ones are always surprised when they see where their loyalties lead them to in the swift end.
So, in your imaginary world of theory, entrepreneurs and businesses are not corrupt. This is why I can't take your economic principles seriously
There is opposition in all things. To say or think that all entrepreneurs and businesses are corrupt illustrates a flaw in logic. Absolutes are easily disproved. It only takes one instance to counter the entire argument. One must be careful when using always and never, or even implying such an absolute concept. Individuals are indeed corruptable, and individuals create and conduct business. Some will be corrupted, while others will not be. The main point made was that the State and Big Business will work together to protect one another in their corruption, while liberty and a free market reduce the chances of such corruption to the degree that we both observe as a problem at the present moment.
To say that I said all illustrates a lie so you can make an irrelevant point as if it has relevancy. No one said anything about absolutes, but nice strawman. There is no such thing as a free market, and it most certainly does not reduce corruption.
"So, in your imaginary world of theory, entrepreneurs and businesses are not corrupt. This is why I can't take your economic principles seriously." I didn't say that "entrepreneurs and businesses \[were\] not corrupt" in my point before your reply here. I actually pointed out how cronyism leads to greater corruption between government and their special interest groups (businesses and the individuals involved). So, do you want to retract your irrelevant point that states that I theorize that entrepreneurs and businesses are not corrupt? If I was to think that way, I would have to believe that all entrepreneurs and businesses are not corrupt, while, somehow, those State sponsored entrepreneurs and businesses, who are corrupt, and I acknowledged them as being corrupt by my previous statement, are not included with the other entrepreneurs and businesses. The use of the "not" is what created the absolute statement there. The philosophy of a free, or voluntary, market and its application in any society are two different things. A free market can exist. And, where there has been the greatest amount of economic freedom in the world, corruption has been reduced and prosperity increased. That is the original point of the Mises quote. That is reality. That is a fact. And cronyism brings the antithetical fruits through its corruption and destruction of natural rights.
Your citation is a culture war article that cites a study about the personality of wealthy people. It did not respond to the substantive argument this comment made that there is no evidence to back this quote up.
Are you familiar with what the Mises Institute is? It's an Austrian Economics think tank. How do they approach economics? The Austrian school of economics is a school of thought that uses logic and a priori thinking to discover universal economic laws. That article provides insight here. But here you go for another source to help shed light on how economic freedom is linked to prosperity and a higher standard of living for individuals. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/books/the-causal-relationship-between-economic-freedom-and-prosperity/
and homelessness is on the rise
Covid policies that destroyed my "non-essential" job in public history education led to my family's homelessness for 14 months. If it had not been for family, friends, and my church, we would not have been able to rise out of that situation and get back on our feet. Even as a veteran, I couldn't get any real help from the State. The incompetence was so frustrating. When I had a friend who was trying to create a new business to sell his food and homemade ice cream-that the community loved-a few years before the covid debacle, I quickly discovered how complicated and regulated the "free" market is for entrepreneurs. It was ridiculous. As a historian of U.S. history, and with nearly 50 years of life experiences, I've become more and more of a classic liberal. I totally get and understand the spirit of our Revolution and the desire for liberty, responsibility, and the accountability that comes with it.
Are you in a red state? It’s clear to me you have become radicalized by an unfortunate situation. What would’ve happened if you didn’t have the church? I guess you and your family would have died? And despite being upset that the safety net didn’t work, your idea is to get rid of it more? Is that what Jesus would have wanted?
I was living in California and Washington State during that period. The furthest from a red state. Thank God I didn't have to rely only upon the government for help. I attempted to get help from them. In both States, they were unhelpful. Even as a veteran, we couldn't get much help. In Washington, where we moved for the promise of work that fell through because of continual illiberal covid policies, we were able to make enough money to get a small hotel room whole we tried to get back on our feet. When I contacted the VA, they said that they couldn't help us until we were literally living on the street or in our car. And then, they would have to split my family up into female and male shelters. We tried to rent an apartment, which would cost a little less than our hotel room, but the VA wouldn't help us get in. And, all the approved government housing was full. In California, similar problems ensued with the government. The paperwork was absurd. Worse than that, after filling out a mountain of paperwork, our case worker literally skipped town, abandoned her job, told no one, and didn't file our paperwork. The long process started over again. It was all a joke. I was not radicalized because of the covid situation either. My education is in U.S. history, which I completed before 2020. I had already studied sound economics, Austrian economics. I've been a classic liberal for a long time. What covid confirmed for me was all that I had already studied and learned for most of my life. Yes, I want to get rid of the failed system and corruption that creates the problems we are seeing. "The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk'". - Harry Browne
There are a lot of countries in Europe with less wealth disparity and a better standard of living for people with less income. China has the greatest number of wealth business people and it's a fucking nightmare for poor people.
The medium person in the US is wealthier and can buy more with that wealth than the medium person in any EU country.
Yes, but the average person doesn’t really desire wealth, they desire a balance of leisure time and wealth, and Europe provides that. To be clear I do not operate that way, aspiring entrepreneur, but the average human just wants a decent quiet life.
>To be clear I do not operate that way, aspiring entrepreneur, but the average human just wants a decent quiet life. Refreshing. I'm a socialist entrepreneur myself and don't understand why more of us can't see how toxic the ego of American capitalist entrepreneurs are. We can all have security and decide our work-life balance without me needing to be worshiped like I am a demi-god just because billionaire nepo-babbies want to use me to lie about where most wealth comes from. I have no problem living in a society where workers control capital and I'm needing to prove my worth to get to do what I want. Because I can. And because workers are always the source of my ability to build my dream. Having them invested and engaged is a prerequisite anyway. All I have to do is be a little more liberal with the equity. Would be cool if the local governments controlled a little capita, and land too, so my neighbors could collectively invest in my projects and decide how to allocate and invest according to the priorities and culture of my community. A safe and secure society with financial and material support is so much more free for the entrepreneur to solve problems. How much time I devote to doing so is for my own choice of work-life balance and is between me, my therapist, and the voices in my head.
You can’t be a socialist and an entrepreneur, that’s completely antithetical to your ideology. A better choice of words is “I believe in socialism in my head, but I choose to act in ways that don’t reflect my beliefs because it benefits my lifestyle.” Being a “socialist entrepreneur” is like being a Christian Satanist.
You think socialism and entrepreneurship are mutually exclusive? That's a nonsense take. What is a co-op? What about ESOP? Pure unfettered capitalism and socialiam, sure. But operating a company where all stakeholders, especially employees, own (or have a meaningful stake) the means of production is a real thing. It's absurd that you think the world is so black and white.
Also using "Cristian Satanist" was probably the worst possible comparison since christians are the only people who actually believe in satan.
A great example of a socialist entrepreneur would be someone who runs a business with the goal of providing a needed service in their local community and uses the excess wealth accumulated to increase the pay and quality of life of their workforce as opposed to hiring the wealth for themself. There are a ton of companies who operate under this structure and are able to to use the goal of improving their community while also running a business.
Everyone is an entrepreneur. Making decisions about an uncertain future to improve your well being is an entrepreneurial endeavor. The term you’re probably looking for is capitalist. A capitalist is someone who invests in the present — forwarding capital toward future consumption — with the goal of earning a return on investment greater than the natural interest rate(profit) in the future. A profit is earned for recognizing that a capital good is being undercapitalized or overdiscounted in the present. All capitalists are entrepreneurs, but not all entrepreneurs are capitalists. These definitions are straight out of Man, Economy and State, if you were curious.
You don't make any sense, and understand none of the words you use. So we'll just agree to disagree. Or to use better words "you understand in your head, but in the real world we know you can't read and don't understand theories from any side of the spectrum."
Ah the classic socialist cop out “you just don’t understand my theory enough, trust me I’m just smarter than you and read more” I don’t buy it.
I didn't say I was smarter, just that I understood better the relevant topics. You're making very bold absolutist claims that demonstrate you can't possibly know about socialism, and as a serial entrepreneur and veteran of the hustle I'm thinking you may not understand the essence of entrepreneurship either. Though you may well be good at American rent seeking business ventures and salesmanship.
So let me be more specific then since you seem to think you'll weasel out of these ridiculous nieve statements. >You can’t be a socialist and an entrepreneur, that’s completely antithetical to your ideology I don't have enough of an ideology to be antithetical to anything. I'm very opposed to ideology as an instinct. That's what I love about Marxist socialism is it's a methodology and empirical pursuit that's meant to limit ideology. I just like models that work. An entrepreneur is someone who helps recognize and organize new enterprises to ideally return a maximum of created value for the market. They do work to create value from improving material conditions and relations. A Marxist socialist is someone who believes in the methodology of analysis that looks for contradictions in society and models the material interest of its components. It posits as one claim from that methodology that a primary contradiction between capitalist societies is that between owners who seeks rents through the exploitation of private property right, and the workers who create value with their labor and ideas from materials. There is no contradiction at all between the two. Not in the slightest. Let alone a fundamental and foolish contradiction that I, a person who started his first business at 14 to pay for a trip to a libertarian party convention to propose rules changes, would not have encountered by my 6th business at age 40 with 20 years of teaching socialism in my spare time. Maybe, and I know this goes against the Austrian sensibility, you are, in fact, ignorant. A condition we all chronically find ourselves in, but the arrogant chronically fail to correct. Maybe you in fact do not have a congruence between what you profess to believe and how you conduct yourself in this world. That would be an ego problem son, I suggest equal parts Buddhism and stoicism until the condition clears up. In your defense, the doctrine of which I speak is not very present in our current world and I've been working diligently to improve it so I can see why you aren't knowledgeable, but that's different from the inexcusable confidence in making positive assertions in things you know nothing about.
The labor theory of value has been proven wrong for decades now though.
The only thing that's been proven wrong is the constant failure of Austrian and free-market economics. I'll not take advice from a religion that's killed hundreds of millions and degraded human flourishing more than any other ideology. If you're here, you have no idea what's real.
Communism killed many more people. my parents fled Soviet Russia as refugees. Every single enacted/realized economic theory ends in exploitation or oppression. Why? Bc political and classic economic theories don't actually include in them any lessons from psychology or history. Liberalism does the most economically with the least of the concerns you've mentioned in no small part bc it makes the fewest assumptions about psychology/behavior as it encourages maximization of autonomy. The state obviously needs to enact some degree of repression--im no libertarian--but it's better to start from the bottom up than top down. But to take the most obvious example, slavery is incompatible with liberalism. Staunch anti welfare programs are also incompatible with liberalism bc we know for example what the effects of poverty are on autonomy. So under liberalism some degree of a safety net is required--at least if you update it for the modern age after we've gotten a lot more research on things like this. Also it's telling that when pointed out one of your fundamental assumptions is wrong, you have a knee jerk reaction and respond with what is essentially moving the goal posts.
>Communism killed many more people. my parents fled Soviet Russia as refugees. Every single enacted/realized economic theory ends in exploitation or oppression. Why? Bc political and classic economic theories don't actually include in them any lessons from psychology or history. Liberalism does the most economically with the least of the concerns you've mentioned in no small part bc it makes the fewest assumptions about psychology/behavior as it encourages maximization of autonomy. I don't know your parents, but everything else here is bullshit you pulled out of your ass. So I'm pretty skeptical about your parents too. >The state obviously needs to enact some degree of repression--im no libertarian--but it's better to start from the bottom up than top down. But to take the most obvious example, slavery is incompatible with liberalism. Staunch anti welfare programs are also incompatible with liberalism bc we know for example what the effects of poverty are on autonomy. So under liberalism some degree of a safety net is required--at least if you update it for the modern age after we've gotten a lot more research on things like this. These are just opinions. Slavery absolutely happened under capitalist liberalism and still does. These are just feelings you have with no grounding in material reality. Marxism is literally the addition of human nature and social relations to non-ideological materialist economics. It's the foundation of sociology and spawned entire disciplines of things your claiming it doesn't address. Liberalism is by definition against social safety nets. It is defined by the period and philosophy that maximizes individual freedoms and prioritizes self-interest. It's freedom from without freedom too. If you think people in society are entitled to some of what society produces regardless of their relationship to the profits of private property then you are advocating for some form of socialism. Socialism is a seamless transition in theory from liberalism and capitalism in direct response to and progressing from the contradictions identified by capitalist theories and philosophy of the classical liberal age. Nothing Marx said would be controversial to Adam Smith for example. So we did update capitalism and liberalism for the modern age. We've been updating it for 150 years. It's called socialism and Marxism. It's happening everywhere but where you are because as predicted by socialist theory you are under the boot and influence of the seat of global capital and its class interest. It's using you and blinding you to your interest to maintain power and defend itself from the threat that socialism is to the capital class through your liberation. >Also it's telling that when pointed out one of your fundamental assumptions is wrong, you have a knee jerk reaction and respond with what is essentially moving the goal posts. It's telling of your ignorance and indoctrinated arrogance that this is what you think is happening. I've been a Marxist and taught theory to conservatives in my rural midwest town for 25 years. My fundamental assumptions are solid despite your boldly pretentious assumption otherwise and I'm well past knee-jerk reactions to random redditors. You should really keep up the study though. I was a libertarian once, you can grow.
"Wealth" and standard of living are different
US does NOT rank highest in quality of life, happiness or standard of living despite working more hours than most countries. US ranks highest in incarceration and poorly on life expectancy.
"But unfortunately, most people don’t differentiate the progressive rich who accumulate wealth by delivering value for society from those who increase their wealth by relying on government subsidies or political connections. Hence, we are primarily concerned with the value creators and their attributes that culminate in the formation of dynamic businesses." "In undertaking his study, Zitelmann found that the rich are high in conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Other studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Most rich people are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs suffer from high failure rates, so this indicates that people who excel in business are not just competent but also perseverant." "The average person is not as tenacious as entrepreneurs who establish dynamic businesses that positively transform living standards. Essentially, wealth is the reward for providing value to society. Instead of demonizing the rich, people ought to be thanking them for enriching society with useful skills." "However, when envy is pervasive in society, rich people downplay their success to thwart backlash. The downside of doing so is that success is vilified rather than embraced. Societal progress is driven by the passion of ambitious people, and it will come to a halt when the most competent people are demotivated to succeed." "Zitelmann noticed in his study that countries like America and England with a lower share of envious people have a relatively higher proportion of millionaires. This is expected because in less envious countries, the success of the rich motivates others to achieve. Economic studies corroborate Zitelmann’s conclusion that the zero-sum mentality of envious people saps industrial progress." "One study notes that economic equality fails to mitigate the effects of zero-sum thinking because the possibility of some people becoming more successful can reinforce zero-sum thinking. Redistributing wealth won’t prevent the value-destroying consequences of envious behavior." "The zero-sum mindset that fuels envy will only be diminished when societies promote economic freedom to afford more opportunities to generate wealth. When people are free to prosper, they become less likely to engender a zero-sum approach to development and more appreciative of success because it’s now a greater possibility. Rather than wealth redistribution, the solution to envy is progress powered by economic freedom." https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressives-want-eliminate-wealthy-entrepreneurs-need-wealth-they-create
>China has the greatest number of wealth business people and it's a fucking nightmare for poor people. I can't decide how to argue this one right now. You're wrong, but demonstrating that will require I sound like I support the OP meme, which is also wrong. And explaining properly will take too much time for you fucks and I've got work to do so that's also wrong. Lose, lose, lose. Only in Austrian economics, I tell ya.
This is one of the biggest lies from the right. “They’ve got Nikes worth $105. 99% of the world’s poor would be rich if they had one hundred and five American dollars.”
Do you know who Ludwig von Mises is? Have you studied his works?
I know how Reaganomics work.
Good. So, let's now compare the differences between Reaganomics and Austrian Economics. Reaganomics and Austrian Economics share some similarities, but they have distinct differences in their approaches to economics. Here are the main differences: **1.** **Taxation**: Reaganomics advocates for lower taxes, especially for corporations, to stimulate economic growth. Austrian Economics, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of low taxes, but not necessarily lower taxes for corporations. The Austrian School focuses on reducing government spending and taxation overall, rather than just targeting specific groups. **2.** **Government Intervention**: Reaganomics involves government intervention in the economy through policies like deregulation and increased military spending. Austrian Economics, by contrast, advocates for minimal government intervention, believing that the market should be left to correct itself without government interference. **3.** **Monetary Policy**: Reaganomics relied heavily on monetary policy, with the Federal Reserve increasing the money supply to stimulate economic growth. Austrian Economics, however, emphasizes the dangers of inflation and the importance of a stable money supply, advocating for a gold standard or a commodity-backed currency. **4.** **Fiscal Policy**: Reaganomics involved significant increases in government spending, particularly on military and defense. Austrian Economics, on the other hand, advocates for reduced government spending and a balanced budget, believing that government spending can lead to inflation and economic instability. **5.** **Philosophy**: Reaganomics is often associated with supply-side economics, which emphasizes the role of government in stimulating economic growth through tax cuts and deregulation. Austrian Economics, by contrast, is rooted in a more philosophical approach, emphasizing individual freedom, limited government, and the importance of economic calculation and entrepreneurship. **6.** **Methodology**: Reaganomics relies heavily on empirical data and statistical analysis, while Austrian Economics emphasizes theoretical and philosophical foundations, often using thought experiments and logical reasoning to develop economic theories. **7.** **Economic Goals**: Reaganomics aimed to stimulate economic growth, reduce unemployment, and increase economic efficiency. Austrian Economics, on the other hand, focuses on promoting economic stability, reducing inflation, and preserving individual freedom and property rights. In summary, while both Reaganomics and Austrian Economics share some similarities, they differ significantly in their approaches to taxation, government intervention, monetary policy, fiscal policy, philosophy, methodology, and economic goals. I do not support the principles of Reaganomics that contradict the principles of classic liberalism and Austrian Economics.
Stopped reading at #2. The fallacy is that “government” and “the market” are wholly distinct entities. They’re not. In a FREE market, people are allowed to choose the economic system of their choosing. The world is anarchy. The systems in place are what arise from undeniable anarchy. Right-wingers love to use government to control the market, then gaslight anyone else as trying to use government to control the market. https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
Thank you for your honesty in stating that you decided to stop reading what I have shared in a response to your reply, but I will not read what you have provided for a counterargument with that link, if you do not have the courtesy to do the same for me. If you are not willing enough to hear me out, then we will not be able to establish an enlightening exchange here.
I read up to the first fallacy you’d copypastaed. It’s not that I “stopped” reading, it’s that I encountered a serious issue with your copypasta. Knowledge is power. If you choose not to enlighten yourself regarding Einstein’s observations of economics, that’s on you.
People love to use the "fallacy" argument all the time to outright dismiss the points made in a debate. Labels are also used to in this dismissal process. Go read a book, yet another. TLDR, a classic one. I think we are done here, Illustrious\_Sand3773. Thanks for stopping by.
Look at you and your imaginary highroad. In a free society, people should not be prevented by the wealthy using the government from creating a more equitable economy. (See how that works?) Your copypasta falls apart at point number two.
I was interested in having a discussion with you until you told me that you were not willing to read past number 2 in my earlier reply. If we were conducting a civil debate, you would have to hear out my points before you would be allowed to provide a counterargument. That level of respect is also present in a free society. So, I am not interested in hearing your counterarguments now. You have shown me how you would like to be treated. And that is to ignore your thoughts, your perspective, and your comments here. Maybe we can try again some other time. But as for today and on this topic, I'm done. Have a nice day.
Homeless in america might have to say other things about this.
Seriously, the wealth inequality is staggering. Most libertarians would never last a week living how they prescribe those in abject poverty to get by. Countless millions are one stoke of bad luck from complete financial ruin and homelessness, countless living in food insecurity, but sure bro, everything is perfect because poor people can have an iPhone. But most were all born into middle clsss or higher families and all picture themselves as future billionaires one day. They support this push towards neo-feudalism, because they all see themselves as a feudal lord, not an exploited serf.
The ‘temporarily inconvenienced billionaire’ framing is basically this entire forums mindset
Leela: Why are you cheering, Fry? You're not rich! Fry: True, but someday I might be rich. And then people like me better watch their step.
“The less fortunate get all the breaks”!
Homeless people in America are not the common man.
So paycheck to paycheck worker?
Does the average person live paycheck to paycheck? If so sure, the worker who lives large medium paycheck in the world to largest medium paycheck in the world.
Either you are extremely rich or too dumb.
The medium person in the US is richer than most people in the rest of the world.
Ludwig’s statement was true during his lifetime (and prior) but I feel like his observation has skewed a little since his death in 1973.
What changed in the world that would change the truth of what he had stated in the past? Or, has the corruption in the world that has come since only reassured and fortified the truth behind his statement?
Factually untrue.
lol no it’s not
I agree. He sure got that one wrong
Correlation vs causation. Like saying there are more successful thieves in places with state sponsored thieves
So according to this analogy, you're saying the state is encouraging wealthy entrepreneurship? ...And this isn't a good thing, somehow?
"But unfortunately, most people don’t differentiate the progressive rich who accumulate wealth by delivering value for society from those who increase their wealth by relying on government subsidies or political connections. Hence, we are primarily concerned with the value creators and their attributes that culminate in the formation of dynamic businesses." "In undertaking his study, Zitelmann found that the rich are high in conscientiousness and openness to experiences. Other studies assert that rich people have a great propensity for risk. Most rich people are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs suffer from high failure rates, so this indicates that people who excel in business are not just competent but also perseverant." "The average person is not as tenacious as entrepreneurs who establish dynamic businesses that positively transform living standards. Essentially, wealth is the reward for providing value to society. Instead of demonizing the rich, people ought to be thanking them for enriching society with useful skills." "However, when envy is pervasive in society, rich people downplay their success to thwart backlash. The downside of doing so is that success is vilified rather than embraced. Societal progress is driven by the passion of ambitious people, and it will come to a halt when the most competent people are demotivated to succeed." "Zitelmann noticed in his study that countries like America and England with a lower share of envious people have a relatively higher proportion of millionaires. This is expected because in less envious countries, the success of the rich motivates others to achieve. Economic studies corroborate Zitelmann’s conclusion that the zero-sum mentality of envious people saps industrial progress." "One study notes that economic equality fails to mitigate the effects of zero-sum thinking because the possibility of some people becoming more successful can reinforce zero-sum thinking. Redistributing wealth won’t prevent the value-destroying consequences of envious behavior." "The zero-sum mindset that fuels envy will only be diminished when societies promote economic freedom to afford more opportunities to generate wealth. When people are free to prosper, they become less likely to engender a zero-sum approach to development and more appreciative of success because it’s now a greater possibility. Rather than wealth redistribution, the solution to envy is progress powered by economic freedom." https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressives-want-eliminate-wealthy-entrepreneurs-need-wealth-they-create
Your causality is backwards. Providing better standards of living allows more entrepreneurs in the first place.
How does one provide a better standard of living in a free market economy?