The problem with capitalism

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:07 am

It seems to me that capitalism by its very nature is evil.

Its very essenced is "survival of the fittest, every-one for themselves, I'm alright sod every-one else".

I know it's out of favour at the moment but the nature of communism (true communism, not fascist Stalinism) is that everone helps each other for the benefit of all.

Is it that we humans are such selfish creatures that capitalism is the most popular system for society and that when communism is tried it always turns into fascism?

If you think capitalism is not evil please explain to me why, and if anyone agrees with me let me know.

Thanks.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:36 am

caesar777;484870 wrote: It seems to me that capitalism by its very nature is evil.

Its very essenced is "survival of the fittest, every-one for themselves, I'm alright sod every-one else".

I know it's out of favour at the moment but the nature of communism (true communism, not fascist Stalinism) is that everone helps each other for the benefit of all.

Is it that we humans are such selfish creatures that capitalism is the most popular system for society and that when communism is tried it always turns into fascism?

If you think capitalism is not evil please explain to me why, and if anyone agrees with me let me know.

Thanks.

I am a firm believer in well-regulated capitalism, not because its that great, but because compared to all the other economic systems that have been used over time, its the one that most accuratly reflects what peoples economic relationship with each other actually is. I don't think communism, even if it was done in a benign way, (I am not sure how you could enforce it on an entire population without using a lot of coerction) would work, simply because as you say, it would not reflect how people interact with each other eonomically, and also because it would simply be impossible for a government or beauracacy to run an economy on a day to day basis. For example, look at how wasteful our own beareaucraces are at trying to run health systems, or local governemnts, now imagine the same people trying to control all prices, all products, all demand, all supply, shipping, production, raw materials, foreign trade, and all on a microeconomic scale from the grocery store to the largest corporations, It would simply be........ one: too hard; two: too much control for any governemnt to use responsibly; and three: it would not solve any of the basic inequities of life, it would simply move the hierarchy from an econmic one, to a politcal one, and thas worse I think.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:09 am

Capitalism does not disregard the welfare of others. Capitalism simply recognizes the value inherent in a system where those that earn, keep what they earn. Capitalism hinges on transactions conducted by mutual consent for mutual benefit. With communism, there is no incentive to work at all, and no reason to better oneself.

Communism also completely stifles progress. Progress can only come out of the work of people whose ability produces more than their personal consumption requires, those who are intellectually and financially able to venture out in search of the new. Capitalism is the only system where such progress is accompanied by a betterment in one's standard of living, one's consumption, and one's enjoyment of life.

Take Soviet Russia as a perfect example. Two generations of Russians starved and suffered waiting for the abundance promised them by the collectivist government. It's still happening today, a decade and more after the fall of the Soviet Union.

To quote one of my favorite authors: "It is medically possible to take the corneas of a man's eyes immediately after his death and transplant them to the eyes of a living man who is blind, thus restoring his sight. Now, according to collectivized ethics, this poses a social problem. Should we wait until a man's death to cut out his eyes, when other men need them? Should we regard everybody's eyes as public property and devise a 'fair method of distribution'? Would you advocate cutting out a living man's eye and giving it to a blind man, thus 'equalizing' them? No? Then don't struggle any further with questions about 'public projects' in a free society. You know the answer. The principle is the same."

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:23 am

Evil? No. One has the choice to let Capitalism dictate what it is they consume.

Without a free society, capitalism wouldn't work. Which is why you don't see it in Communist countries(All my view).

Capitalism thrives off of consumption, and without a free society, consumer rates would by relatively low. To compare the two, yes, I can see how one would think of it as evil, but truthfully, all I see is an exploitation driven by ones own realization that they can benefit from it.

People have the right to chose what they pay for and what they do not, therefore I believe that capitalism is in a sense "getting bad with the good". It's just called good business, that's all.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:28 am

Galbally;484917 wrote: two: too much control for any governemnt to use responsibly; and three: it would not solve any of the basic inequities of life, it would simply move the hierarchy from an econmic one, to a politcal one, and thas worse I think.

I couldn't agree more.

I would rather take "the bad with the good", in order to keep the majority of the good where it is overwhelmingly wanted, which is wanted because it ensures our freedoms. (My opinion)

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:39 am

caesar777;484870 wrote: It seems to me that capitalism by its very nature is evil.

Its very essenced is "survival of the fittest, every-one for themselves, I'm alright sod every-one else".

I know it's out of favour at the moment but the nature of communism (true communism, not fascist Stalinism) is that everone helps each other for the benefit of all.

Is it that we humans are such selfish creatures that capitalism is the most popular system for society and that when communism is tried it always turns into fascism?

If you think capitalism is not evil please explain to me why, and if anyone agrees with me let me know.

Thanks.

We in the UK are about 60:40 cap:com IMO.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:22 pm

No-one seems to agree with me, is there not one person with a social conscience out there?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:55 pm

caesar777;485195 wrote: No-one seems to agree with me, is there not one person with a social conscience out there?

If you think about it, everything is capitalist, only bearing different names, and those who abuse it's power, rendering it either sociological, or political. At least what we chose to call capitalism today, facilitates personal freedoms.

I don't think it would be right to call capitalism evil without calling the majority of such a capitalist society evil.

I think capitalism provokes better advancement and technology because people are free to pursue their happiness. In other words, people will do an alot better job doing what they love to do, as opposed to being forced to sacrifice where their passions lay.

Heres an article I found interesting for the sake of the thread.

http://www.capitalismcenter.org/philoso ... talism.htm

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:01 pm

[QUOTE=K.Snyder;485356]

I don't think it would be right to call capitalism evil without calling the majority of such a capitalist society evil.

Ido call the majority of society evil and selfish.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:23 pm

caesar777;485373 wrote: [QUOTE=K.Snyder;485356]

I don't think it would be right to call capitalism evil without calling the majority of such a capitalist society evil.

Ido call the majority of society evil and selfish.

:wah:

God, I hope that's not true.

:wah:

We all know, what a majority wants, a majority gets, and I would hate to see what the future has in store for my kids(Don't have kids, yet, but am speaking hypothetically)

From my experience, I find the majority of society rather courteous, and respectful...don't know exactly how it is over there, but I would have to imagine its rather unpleasant.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:27 pm

God, I hope that's not true.

:wah:

We all know, what a majority wants, a majority gets, and I would hate to see what the future has in store for my kids(Don't have kids, yet, but am speaking hypothetically)

From my experience, I find the majority of society rather courteous, and respectful...don't know exactly how it is over there, but I would have to imagine its rather unpleasant.

I find people are very nice in general but when we have to compete, as we all do in a capitalist society we all look after ourselves first. Eg. if you can get your clothes cheaper by buying from abroad although you know they are manufactured in terrible conditions for terrible wages you still buy them just to save a few pounds which you can spend on other things.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:47 pm

caesar777;485409 wrote:

I find people are very nice in general but when we have to compete, as we all do in a capitalist society we all look after ourselves first.

This ensures a wide variety of innovation, which in turn can be regulated simply by that very same competition, keeping inflation at bay. Lets face it, most business derives souly as a means to satisfy societies wants, not needs, therefore, people would not buy things they cannot afford, or things they regard as not being worth.

caesar777;485409 wrote:

Eg. if you can get your clothes cheaper by buying from abroad although you know they are manufactured in terrible conditions for terrible wages you still buy them just to save a few pounds which you can spend on other things.

And such products come from non capitalist societies, otherwise those people would not work in such conditions.

I would look at criticizing such countries for its insufficient economic criteria before placing the blame on some guy who buys something with his hard earned money just because he has the freedom to do so, oblivious to the 98 degree unventilated warehouse that is more than likely politically controlled from an economic standpoint opposite to those that ensure its employees freedom. Those very same employees who are forced to work with what they have in order to survive.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:03 pm

caesar777;484870 wrote: It seems to me that capitalism by its very nature is evil.

Its very essenced is "survival of the fittest, every-one for themselves, I'm alright sod every-one else".

I know it's out of favour at the moment but the nature of communism (true communism, not fascist Stalinism) is that everone helps each other for the benefit of all.

Is it that we humans are such selfish creatures that capitalism is the most popular system for society and that when communism is tried it always turns into fascism?

If you think capitalism is not evil please explain to me why, and if anyone agrees with me let me know.

Thanks.

Can you give an example of a truely comunist society? The nearest I can think of is early Israeli Kabutz but they didn't last long enough to know how successful they would have been in the long term.

To each according to his needs. From each according to his abilities.

I do feel that you are being harsh on Capitalism in that it is not just everyone for themself and accepting Capialism does not automatically preclude having a social concience.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:17 pm

caesar777;485195 wrote: No-one seems to agree with me, is there not one person with a social conscience out there?

Beleiving in a communist or capitalist economic system and having a social conscience are not the same thing Caesar? Sweden is a capitalist country, yet it has far, far better social provision than any socialist or communist country has ever achieved, mostly because they have a culture that values society, and also they can afford to pay for an elaborate welfare state, most of the nordic countries are similar, Germany also and and France are similar. Britain and Ireland are the most what you might call aggressively capitalist societies in Europe, yet they both also have extensive social provision (though I am not for one minute saying its perfect). Ireland has used a very capitalist philosophy toward economics over the past 20 years, cutting taxes, and encouraging outside investment, and now Ireland is now one of the richest societies on earth, and we can afford a lot of things that once we could not, unemployment is 4 percent and over a third of all Irish children go on to third level education. The Irish government has been able to both cut taxes and hugely increase social spending over this period, though I will admit straight away that there are problems, but its better to have problems and money, rather than problems and no money, which was once what we faced.

Japan is a highly consumerist capitalist society, yet it has one of the lowest poverty rates on earth, again, its more a cultural phenomenon than a economic one (outside of the fact that by generating wealth capitalism does alliviate much extreme poverty). The USA is generally regarded as having poor social provision, but still the vast majority of Americans live prosperous healthy lives, and the attitude toward social welfare and healthcare in the states is cultural at least as much as it is an economic phenomenon. The most important thing about having a social conscience is that you need to be able to afford one, and if you do not generate weath by trading in products and services then you will have no wealth in the first place and this argument becomes academic, you are putting too much emphasis on absolutes, and not recognizing that all economic systems reflect a balance of conflicting interest groups and needs in any society.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:29 pm

caesar777;485195 wrote: No-one seems to agree with me, is there not one person with a social conscience out there?

So we have to agree with you to be right? Sorry, chum, not so. And I'm not actually all that sorry, come to think of it. I laid out my values in my previous response to your post. Remaining true to those values indicates that I do indeed have a conscience, social and otherwise. I give value to those things that I think are correct, and are best for the society in which I exist. Capitalism is the economic system that best provides for a free society.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:34 pm

AArrrgghhh!! I'll have to respond to this later because the Spurs game is on, and I know my priorities.

I'm just ticked off because the government won't give me the tickets to see a live game. After all, I deserve them as much as that rich fat cat does.

Just because he has the money to buy them. pffft!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:26 am

Diuretic;485794 wrote: San Antonio Spurs, that is, not Tottenham jimbo

I'm still working through a link that gmc gave me to the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, I should be better informed when I get through reading it.

It's not capitalism that's evil, it's corporatism that's evil. Socialism is a nice thought but I think it might have had its day. There must be something beyond both, we just haven't invented it yet.

Yeah I was wondering since when Accountable had started watching the Premiership! Still if he did support a team, spurs would be a good choice for him I think, they are a cosmopolitan and urbane team, who play direct football, a bit like him then! :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:31 am

Capitalism, and good business, recognizes that to get your own and screw the rest is short-sighted at best and leads to failure, not success. Capitalism rewards ambition - those who work, who think, and who come up with good timely ideas. For those willing to pay the dues, there is no limit to what they can earn, own, or do. Those who fail - failure being relative, but I'd look toward the permanently homeless, I s'pose - do so because they are lazy, unimagininative, or just not smart enough ... or they just give up.

Socialism promotes sloth. Mediocrity. Everybody's going to get what the government decides you need whether you work or not ... whether you put in any effort at all. It creates an environment detrimental to invention. Sure, a socialist society will have a few great minds, but far fewer will strive for greatness there than in a capitalist society, imo.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:32 am

Erinna1112;485716 wrote: Capitalism is the economic system that best provides for a free society.

Yes, we are free. If you have no money you are free to starve.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:32 am

Galbally;485956 wrote: Yeah I was wondering since when Accountable had started watching the Premiership! Still if he did support a team, spurs would be a good choice for him I think, they are a cosmopolitan and urbane team, who play direct football, a bit like him then! :wah:
In that case, I guess I'll have to read up.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:47 am

Accountable;485963 wrote: Sure, a socialist society will have a few great minds, but far fewer will strive for greatness there than in a capitalist society, imo.

Greatness is its own reward without money.

I would rather be the man to find a cure for cancer, and to die a pauper than live in luxury in the west and die from a heart attack due to obesity from my excessive eating.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:45 am

caesar777;485965 wrote: Yes, we are free. If you have no money you are free to starve.

And free to work, and free to better yourself, and free to keep the products of your efforts, without worrying that Big Brother will take them away from you and give them to some other schmuck who isn't bothering to lift a finger.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:48 am

caesar777;485978 wrote: Greatness is its own reward without money.

I would rather be the man to find a cure for cancer, and to die a pauper than live in luxury in the west and die from a heart attack due to obesity from my excessive eating.

But in a socialist or communist society, you're much less likely to accomplish any scientific breakthrough. The incentive isn't there, and the capital most certainly isn't. What's the last major breakthrough to come out of any communist country?

Here's a thought. Go live in Russia or Cuba or China a while and see how your opinions change.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:44 am

caesar777;485978 wrote: Greatness is its own reward without money.

I would rather be the man to find a cure for cancer, and to die a pauper than live in luxury in the west and die from a heart attack due to obesity from my excessive eating.

You're generalizing ones own standards and virtues in association to a capitalist society. From my own opinion, the choices one makes should be held accountable, as opposed to the options one has readily available.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:58 pm

Erinna1112;486010 wrote: But in a socialist or communist society, you're much less likely to accomplish any scientific breakthrough. The incentive isn't there, and the capital most certainly isn't. What's the last major breakthrough to come out of any communist country?

Here's a thought. Go live in Russia or Cuba or China a while and see how your opinions change.

I have no desire to live in a fascist nation thank you, capitalism's bad enough! There are not, and never have been any true communist countries, and why should I move anyway? It is my right to try to change the system in my country for the better.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:03 pm

Erinna1112;486006 wrote: And free to work, and free to better yourself, and free to keep the products of your efforts, without worrying that Big Brother will take them away from you and give them to some other schmuck who isn't bothering to lift a finger.

Free to work if there are enough jobs.

Better myself? All men should be equal and no-one would require "bettering".

Free to keep the products of my efforts, or my low paid workers' efforts whilst all they have goes to pay the rent on their one bedroom flats.

Worry that big brother will take some of my money to help pay for doctor's fees which my workers can not afford to buy.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:26 pm

caesar777;486451 wrote: Free to work if there are enough jobs.

Better myself? All men should be equal and no-one would require "bettering".

Free to keep the products of my efforts, or my low paid workers' efforts whilst all they have goes to pay the rent on their one bedroom flats.

Worry that big brother will take some of my money to help pay for doctor's fees which my workers can not afford to buy.

Isn't it safe to say, that in a capitalist society, there would be more jobs readily available to the public as a direct result of corporations staying ahead of competition in order to sustain it's own profit they feel they are entitled to have?

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:36 pm

K.Snyder;486494 wrote: Isn't it safe to say, that in a capitalist society, there would be more jobs readily available to the public as a direct result of corporations staying ahead of competition in order to sustain it's own profit they feel they are entitled to have?

Not necessarily. If I had my way there would be 100% employment. Companies would not be driven by profit but by a sense of competition as that between amateur sports teams, no-one gets paid for winning an (amateur) game of football, but both sides want to win. There is your driving force.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:43 pm

caesar777;486503 wrote: Not necessarily. If I had my way there would be 100% employment. Companies would not be driven by profit but by a sense of competition as that between amateur sports teams, no-one gets paid for winning an (amateur) game of football, but both sides want to win. There is your driving force.

To be honest, I have never found a problem getting a job. In fact, from my own experience I virtually feel anyone in America can get a job,..all they have to do is want to work.

Look at all the illegal immigrants over here who get jobs...to take the law out of the equation and to speak typically realistic, all one has to do is be willing to work for less(harder) than the other guy,..and even then such rates of employment would go up due to consumer needs rising equally(luxury, as much as one may not wish to admit it produces jobs).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:27 pm

caesar777;485978 wrote: Greatness is its own reward without money.

I would rather be the man to find a cure for cancer, and to die a pauper than live in luxury in the west and die from a heart attack due to obesity from my excessive eating.
I agree, and I wasn't clear enough with my point. There's no stopping a truly great mind from being truly great, but a capitalist society encourages everyone to strive for greatness, so the odds are much greater that even people with more average minds will create wonderful innovation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:37 pm

caesar777;486451 wrote: Free to work if there are enough jobs.Socialists are free to work even if there aren't enough jobs?? :-2

caesar777Better myself? All men should be equal and no-one would require bettering.[/quote wrote: No one does require "bettering", but the doors of opportunity are flung wide for those who wish to do so.

[quote=caesar777]Free to keep the products of my efforts, or my low paid workers' efforts whilst all they have goes to pay the rent on their one bedroom flats.If you were a smart businessman, you would pay your workers what they were worth so you wouldn't lose them to your competitor. With capitalism you get what you pay for .... you get what you deserve.

caesar777 wrote: Worry that big brother will take some of my money to help pay for doctor's fees which my workers can not afford to buy.
Because the socially minded have ruined the perfectly funcional supply & demand competitive system by injecting insurance, which frustrates responsible budgeting.

You don't think like a businessman, and therefore can't empathize. Otherwise you'd see that some of your accusations are just silly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:40 pm

caesar777;486503 wrote: Not necessarily. If I had my way there would be 100% employment.You'd force companies to employ people they don't need? caesar777 wrote: Companies would not be driven by profit but by a sense of competition as that between amateur sports teams, no-one gets paid for winning an (amateur) game of football, but both sides want to win. There is your driving force.Alas, you can't control people's thoughts. It's a nice dream though.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:43 pm

Diuretic;486548 wrote: The illegal immigrants will work for less because they don't really live in the host economy so in effect their willingness to work for less than the market rate in a particular job has the effect of distorting the labour market in usually the lower end of the market which is the end of the labour market that can least afford to suffer a lowering effect.
Excellent argument against illegal immigration. :yh_clap

Doesn't change the fact that there are more than enough jobs for those willing to work.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:35 pm

Diuretic;486640 wrote: I would think that if there was an examination of various sectors of the labour market that there would be a job shortage in many of them. There has to be. As Marx pointed out, capitalist economies need a "reserve army of the unemployed" to keep the cost of labour down and so enable profits to continue to be made. So I think it's more a question of"there are more than enough jobs for those who are willing to work at anything." And that's a problem in a modern economy.
You lost me. It's a problem that some people are picky about where they work or what they do for a living? I only see that as a problem for those particular people, and unfortunately, their families too. Of course, those socially-minded activists who feel guilty about leaving responsibility where it belongs (we shouldn't judge, y'know) have successfully made it a problem of the government, made a private problem public.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:27 pm

caesar777;486451 wrote: Free to work if there are enough jobs.
Or to make your own, if you've got the balls to quit grousing about why things are so terrible and make them better.

Better myself? All men should be equal and no-one would require "bettering".
Equality speaks of equality of opportunity, not equality of existence. I own a house, a car, nice furniture, and other things. I don't feel the need to give that all up simply because other people don't have it.

Free to keep the products of my efforts, or my low paid workers' efforts whilst all they have goes to pay the rent on their one bedroom flats.

Worry that big brother will take some of my money to help pay for doctor's fees which my workers can not afford to buy.

Then maybe you should pay them better.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:35 pm

caesar777;486503 wrote: Not necessarily. If I had my way there would be 100% employment. Companies would not be driven by profit but by a sense of competition as that between amateur sports teams, no-one gets paid for winning an (amateur) game of football, but both sides want to win. There is your driving force.

Just what color is the sky in your world, anyway? Businesses exist to make profit. Without that incentive, there is no driving force. Competition in and of itself is not sufficient.

The thing to do here is to judge each system by its products. Capitalist societies are spectacularly successful, and provide prosperity for their citizens as no other system does. Communist and other collective societies inevitably, invariably fail, withering under the weight of their own bureacracy and medocrity. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action, and capitalism is the system - the ONLY system - that provides for that.

I suggested once that you try to implement your ideas. I challenge you to implement this one. Try running a business that isn't profit-driven. I guarantee you it'll fail. The only question is how quickly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:37 am

Diuretic;486759 wrote: If there are a lot of people who are not doing the work they could do then there's something wrong with the economy and it needs sorting. I see it as a byproduct of national prosperity. Some rich people's kids are spoiled. It happens. It's a sign of a very right economy. We can't make the economy suitably, um, bad (best word I could come up with) so that everyone will take whatever job they can find. That would just increase unemployment.

People make their choices. Let them live with the consequences if they have an out - and such people definitely have an out. All they have to do is pull that stick out of their arses and get to work.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:39 am

Erinna1112;486949 wrote: Or to make your own, if you've got the balls to quit grousing about why things are so terrible and make them better.

Equality speaks of equality of opportunity, not equality of existence. I own a house, a car, nice furniture, and other things. I don't feel the need to give that all up simply because other people don't have it.

Then maybe you should pay them better.
:yh_clap Hear Hear! :yh_clap

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:24 am

[QUOTE=Erinna1112;486949]

Equality speaks of equality of opportunity, not equality of existence. I own a house, a car, nice furniture, and other things. I don't feel the need to give that all up simply because other people don't have it.

Does it? Do the children who's parents earn minimum wage have the same opportunity as those whose parents are millionaires?

I feel guilty every time I turn on the news and see people starving, or living in shanty towns whilst I, though by no means rich have enough to eat and own my own modest home.

The world isn't fair, we must try to make it fair.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:48 am

caesar777;487234 wrote:

Does it? Do the children who's parents earn minimum wage have the same opportunity as those whose parents are millionaires?

Yeah, it's called student loans, they would then have to pay them back when their college degree sets them up with a legitimate job in the future. If they fail, then they go back to minimum wage, or however far their ability and ambition lead them.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:34 am

K.Snyder;487483 wrote: Yeah, it's called student loans, they would then have to pay them back when their college degree sets them up with a legitimate job in the future. If they fail, then they go back to minimum wage, or however far their ability and ambition lead them.

But the rich kid doesn't need a student loan so once he's earning he keeps his money whilst the poor kid is crippled by paying off his debts and so can't think about getting a mortgage until he's in his thirties, by which time rich kid has paid off 50% of his. Doesn't sound equal to me.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:37 am

caesar777;487555 wrote: But the rich kid doesn't need a student loan so once he's earning he keeps his money whilst the poor kid is crippled by paying off his debts and so can't think about getting a mortgage until he's in his thirties, by which time rich kid has paid off 50% of his. Doesn't sound equal to me.

Well it sure as hell beats living in a cardboard box.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:42 am

K.Snyder;487558 wrote: Well it sure as hell beats living in a cardboard box.

Yes it does.

Getting one piece of the cake and watching someone else take three pieces is better than getting no cake and watching someone take it all for himself.

It's still not fair though.