The fundamental problem with capitalism (as described by Bo Burnham

Author: secularmerlin ,

Posts

Total: 282
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @secularmerlin
working as much as they can and as hard as they can. 
That, too, is a faulty assumption. Wealth is acquired more by working smart than working hard, or as much as one can. If your goal is only to work min wage, then, yes, long and hard might get there, but even then, probably not. Education is the key. Make one marketable. Make one skilled. Then continue learning. As soon as possible, start investing. Make money work for you instead of just working for it. Stop trying to acquire things until able to do so without borrowing so much, increasing one's debt. I still drive a 20-year-old truck, not because I must, but because it still runs without costing an arm and leg for maintenance. Do I care what people think, that I don't replace a car every three years? No. This is not rocket science. It does take ambition, planning, and execution.
You argue that I make it sound easy. It's not. It takes commitment to personal responsibility, and many have ignored that. Don't.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @secularmerlin
Capitalism exists for the sole purpose of generating profit. Anything else that comes of it, good or bad, is merely an unintended consequence.
The unintended consequence is what causes society to improve.

I agree we live in a world where workers are exploited 
The workers aren't being exploited by rape whistles being made.  Less people are being raped because rape whistles are being made.  Capitalism didn't create the rapes.

If you think capitalism sucks, sell your computer, sell everything you own, and give the money to the poor if you really don't care about money.
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 943
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
--> @secularmerlin
I'm talking about the value of the money, not the existence of the money itself, although many governments have historically minted currencies.

  The value of a currency can be heavily affected by government policy.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @secularmerlin
Why are you so fixated on Marx?
Because your arguments are Marxian. You're following a rock, who cannot even, and never did run a lemonade stand; perhaps the bare bones of capitalism. Follow who has already achieved, and copy their style, not Marx. Think, and do like them, not Marx. You may not even be aware of who Marx is. Burnham doesn't, either, so why is he a role model? He's a kid who found a candy store.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @Greyparrot
You're saying that the motivation for people with education and skills is exploitation, but note that your beginning was one going to the other, asking for the first's expertise in an area he has made a profession, and discovers they can be of equal service to one another. Where's the exploitation? They each have a service performed they mutually agree are of equal value. That's not exploitation. You use a term for justification that is flawed because neither party feels they have been exploited; they both achieve their needs.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @949havoc

 If your goal is only to work min wage,
I don't believe this is anyone's goal. Many people do not have the luxury of turning down full time minimum wage work last they suffer homelessness, destitution and starvation. Few people get a "small loan" from their parents in the way you or Donald Trump mean it. Most people borrow money from their parents because their car has broken down or their kids are sick or their heat was shut off. The economically disadvantaged are disproportionately affected by any financial hardship. I'm starting to think you don't know what it is like to struggle with food security and financial stability. Certainly you don't if you think it is a choice.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
The unintended consequence is what causes society to improve.

Only if improving society is not your intention. 
If you think capitalism sucks, sell your computer, sell everything you own, and give the money to the poor if you really don't care about money.
The system is compulsory. The threat of homelessness and destitution enforced by the implicit threat of police violence prevents this from being a viable solution. It is odd that you are recommending that I lose everything when I want everyone, including you, to have enough. I think it says something about our individual philosophies. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @949havoc
Because your arguments are Marxian. You're following a rock, who cannot even, and never did run a lemonade stand; perhaps the bare bones of capitalism. Follow who has already achieved, and copy their style, not Marx. Think, and do like them, not Marx. You may not even be aware of who Marx is. Burnham doesn't, either, so why is he a role model? He's a kid who found a candy store.
The source of any argument is not as important as the argument itself. I don't care whose idea feeding and housing everyone was first it is a good idea. People ought to he fed and housed.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @secularmerlin
I don't believe this is anyone's goal. 
Just the Democrats.

Many people do not have the luxury of turning down full time minimum wage work last they suffer homelessness, destitution and starvation. 
How many would benefit from education, and choose to deny themselves of that advantage?

 you don't know what it is like to struggle with food security and financial stability. 
You're right. My father didn't encourage me to be entitled. He taught me ambition, planning, and execution. It's not rocket science. It's not black magic. It's common sense. It works. Anybody can do it. Why don't they? Because they whine.

People ought to he fed and housed.
People ought to feed and house themselves. We've abdicated personal responsibility for entitlement. Don't you get it? That's communism. Forget socialism, that's just communism lite. And it seeks your destruction as a thinking individual. It wants you poor, and dumb, and needy. Personal responsibility drives ambition, that drives planning, and that drives execution, and defeats communism.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @secularmerlin
The unintended consequence is what causes society to improve.

Only if improving society is not your intention. 
In order for capitalism to function, you must benefit your society in order to get paid.  Amazon only gets your money if you agree to buy using their website.  If it wasn't for the 1%, we'd be living like the Amish.

It is odd that you are recommending that I lose everything when I want everyone, including you, to have enough.
People get enough since they get jobs.  But if you care about the homeless, your free to invite them into your own home.  You can be as generous as you want with your own recources.  However, you are a thief if you give other people's money away.

Making the 1% take care of poor people with their money is like making middle class Americans take care of Africans with their money.  If a 1% person wants to give their money away, that it their right.  If an individual wants to sponsor African children to save their lives, that is their right.  It cannot be forced in a free society.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
In order for capitalism to function, you must benefit your society in order to get paid. 
I don't know where you got this idea but you can become and maintain your one of the top one percent earners while actively working towards an unprecedented ecological disaster.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
However, you are a thief if you give other people's money away.
You are also a thief if you steal people's labor. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @secularmerlin
Labor doesn't get stolen.  It is exchanged at a mutually agreed rate.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
Labor doesn't get stolen.  It is exchanged at a mutually agreed rate.
Those who own the means of production refuse to share even scraps of their wealth unless we agree to whatever wage we are offered or be subjected to possible destitution, homelessness and starvation enforced by the implicit threat of police violence by the state. There is generally excepted to he a disparity in wages with white men getting on average more scraps and more opportunities for employment, advancement and also for being extended credit than a woman or person of color. This is not a voluntary system it is an obligatory one. It would be impossible to "live like the amish" without first engaging in capitalism to the degree at least which affords you the price of land upon which to build. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
Jeff Bezos does not deserve more money than a nurse or a first responder or someone who works with disabled children or someone working to make beneficial medicine but he makes more than any of them will make in a life time. Perhaps Jeff Bezos deserves a living wage (as do we all) but he doesn't deserve a billion dollars because no one is entitled to more than they need as their neighbors starve. You are no more responsible for this system than I am but that you are gain more benefits under the system than most people did does not make it a good system just one that arbitrarily favors you.
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 129
0
1
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
1
6
--> @TheUnderdog
 If it wasn't for the 1%, we'd be living like the Amish.

You sound like a monarchist in a feudalist society bro.

"If it wasn't for the king you wouldn't have this tiny amount of money".

Should we now get on our hands and knees and bow down to king bezos and his majesty bill gates?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,604
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @949havoc
I'm saying exploitation isn't a bad thing if people want to use each others resources. And they agree to do it.

The problem with Marxism is that they insist free trade can never be mutual.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @Greyparrot
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I agree. It's just that the word carries a negative connotation.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @secularmerlin
Those who own the means of production refuse to share even scraps of their wealth
As an investor, I don't want to give my money to strangers.  That's like forcing you to give money to kids in Africa.

unless we agree to whatever wage we are offered
The wage is mutually consensual.  If you want more money, find a better job.

or be subjected to possible destitution, homelessness and starvation enforced by the implicit threat of police violence by the state.
You need to contribute to society for society to give you something in return.  People aren't trying to get into socialist countries the way they are trying to enter America.  Clearly, Americans are doing something right that the Chinese aren't.

 There is generally excepted to he a disparity in wages with white men getting on average more scraps and more opportunities for employment, advancement and also for being extended credit than a woman or person of color.
Just like Asians get more than whites, and that Jews get more than Christians.  Few are advocating for taxing Asians and Jews to pay for White Christains.  But this is because people in a free society are allowed to earn what they are able and willing to earn and they can spend or invest that money as they see fit.

It would be impossible to "live like the amish" without first engaging in capitalism to the degree at least which affords you the price of land upon which to build. 
Land is not a right.  You have to pay for property.  Capitalism is an unequally shared blessing.  Socialism is an equally shared misery.  People aren't moving to communist Cuba, Venezuela, or even left wing Scadinavia the same way they are moving to America.

Jeff Bezos does not deserve more money than a nurse or a first responder or someone who works with disabled children or someone working to make beneficial medicine but he makes more than any of them will make in a life time.
Jeff Bezos contributes way more to society than a nurse (nurse make a lot as well).  Jeff Bezos's company sells tens of millions of products to people every single day.  A nurse may help out 5 people in a day.

but he doesn't deserve a billion dollars because no one is entitled to more than they need as their neighbors starve.
Other people starving isn't my problem and it isn't yours.  If you feel different, your free to sponsor kids in poverty with your own money.  You can be as generous as you want with your own money but your a thief if your generous with other people's money, irrespective of how rich they are.

You are no more responsible for this system than I am but that you are gain more benefits under the system than most people did does not make it a good system just one that arbitrarily favors you.
It's not arbitrary.  People that contribute more to others get more money from those others.  Jeff Bezos gets money from you when you buy something on Amazon at a cheaper price than what the store offers for the same product.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @BigPimpDaddy
"If it wasn't for the king you wouldn't have this tiny amount of money".

Should we now get on our hands and knees and bow down to king bezos and his majesty bill gates?
The King didn't produce to society in mutually consensual ways; the American top 1% did.  The King inherited his power and wealth from somebody who engaged in practices not mutually consensual to obtain that wealth.  The top 1% obtains their wealth through mutually consensual means.

If socialism worked, then why aren't people rushing to get into Cuba, Venezuela, or the EU(except for some Muslims, but even they often head to America)?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
As an investor, I don't want to give my money to strangers.  That's like forcing you to give money to kids in Africa.
We already throw away more food than it would take to feed them and the waste product is rotting in landfills creating greenhouse gases. The cost of continuing on as we are is the possible extinction of the human race. I am talking about saving you far more than money. In any case an investor isn't actually producing anything and I'm not convinced he deserves as much of the profit as the workers that do, especially workers in dangerous or back breaking conditions. 
The wage is mutually consensual.  If you want more money, find a better job.
Who gets the better jobs is not up to the workers. It is insulting to both our intelligence to pretend it is. In any case I am unconvinced that the inability to find a better job should necessarily be grounds to consign people to perpetual poverty for generations. 
You need to contribute to society for society to give you something in return. 
I don't know where you get this idea but the people who earn the most do not produce anything for themselves. They only take from society. 
Jeff Bezos contributes way more to society than a nurse (nurse make a lot as well).  Jeff Bezos's company sells tens of millions of products to people every single day.  A nurse may help out 5 people in a day.
Not Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos company. Jeff himself only collects the profits. That is his contribution. Even the startup capital he "risked" was mostly in the form of loans. In other words everything was given to him. How does that make him more deserving than a nurse who gets their hands wrist deep in blood and shit to make people well and them go home and try to raise kids right?
Other people starving isn't my problem and it isn't yours. 
Is that the attitude you would like for others to have if you were in need? Please don't say "I could never!" Because without your money and privilege you certainly could be. If you were starving and cold and alone would that just be your own problem and you wouldn't ask for or accept help? 
irrespective of how rich they are.
They are only rich in the first place because of generations of colonialism and exploitation. The problem is in distribution. No one needs more money than they can reasonably spend in thirty lifetimes. F you think it would cost someone as much to go from being a billionaire to being merely a millionaire than for a person with a minimum wage job to give up all of their income then you clearly are a little out of touch with the consequences of being poor.
It's not arbitrary.  People that contribute more to others get more money from those others.  Jeff Bezos gets money from you when you buy something on Amazon at a cheaper price than what the store offers for the same product.
Most of the indicators of whether a child will grow up to be wealthy are arbitrary, as in beyond that child's control. Things like being white and a man and most importantly being born into wealth. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @secularmerlin
In any case an investor isn't actually producing anything and I'm not convinced he deserves as much of the profit as the workers that do, especially workers in dangerous or back breaking conditions. 
A worker in a company can also be an investor; they just need to buy stock.  I'm taking the risk.  I'm accepting the profits or losses that come with buying stock.  THe worker has a fixed salary.  Workers should invest more.

Who gets the better jobs is not up to the workers. 
The University of Georgetown found 13 million job openings that meet the following requirements:

1) No college degree required.
2) Pays over $55K/year.

Minimum wage workers who are perminately out of school should find better paying jobs like what the University of Georgetown found.

I don't know where you get this idea but the people who earn the most do not produce anything for themselves. They only take from society. 
They made the business.  If it wasn't for Jeff Bezos, Amazon wouldn't exist and now we can't get cheap goods from the convenience of our home.

Even the startup capital he "risked" was mostly in the form of loans. In other words everything was given to him. 
He had to pay back the loans and manage the loans well.  If you think this is easy, try copying Bezos.

If you were starving and cold and alone would that just be your own problem and you wouldn't ask for or accept help? 
I would get help from a church, not from the government.  The church operates using funds obtained through means as consensual as religion it's self.  The government forces you to pay money to them.  Homeless people can use private churches all they want; using the government is theft.

They are only rich in the first place because of generations of colonialism and exploitation.
Jeff Bezos never colonized.  He didn't exploit anyone, otherwise he couldn't get his business so successful.

No one needs more money than they can reasonably spend in thirty lifetimes.
There is a good chance that you make more than you need to live in this lifetime.  Are we going to take all your excess funds and give it to children in Africa?  I think your dodging the question.


 F you think it would cost someone as much to go from being a billionaire to being merely a millionaire than for a person with a minimum wage job to give up all of their income then you clearly are a little out of touch with the consequences of being poor.
Most people don't work minimum wage jobs.

Lets say you make $60/year (average US salary).  You need $30K/year to stay alive.  So that leaves you with $30K/year.  Are we going to force you to give all that money to strangers in Africa?  Of course not; that would be theft.

Lets say you make $100 million/year.  You need $30K/year to stay alive.  So that leaves you with $100M/year.  Are we going to force you to give all that money to strangers in Africa?  Of course not; that would be theft.

Most of the indicators of whether a child will grow up to be wealthy are arbitrary, as in beyond that child's control. Things like being white and a man and most importantly being born into wealth. 
If this was the case, then Jeff Bezos would have comparably rich sibilings.  After all, they are all white, Mark Bezos is a man.  They were all born into the same level of wealth.  Yet Bezos was richest because he contributed the most to society.

Blacks tend to be less sucessful because they aim for different things than whites.  Females tend to be less sucessful because they tend to aim for different things than men.  If a black woman wants to be sucessful, she can merely copy what Bezos did with a different industry and she can hopefully get there.

But different races and different genders want different things.  For instance, blacks and females tend to be more family oriented than white males, so white males tend to be more sucessful and blacks and females tend to have stronger family bonds.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
I'm taking the risk.
How are you risking more than your workers? Should you go out of buisness you both face possible destitution, homelessness and starvation. I would actually wager you would be better able to recover than the workers actually. Sounds like it is more of a risk for them.
Workers should invest more.
If only they weren't bothered with things like buying food and paying rent and dealing with systemic oppression. More to the point if only their parents would be wealthy and loan them money.
I would get help from a church, not from the government.  The church operates using funds obtained through means as consensual as religion it's self.  The government forces you to pay money to them.  Homeless people can use private churches all they want; using the government is theft.
I am glad you are a member of the religious in group to such a degree you feel that is an option for you. Must be nice.
Jeff Bezos never colonized.  He didn't exploit anyone, otherwise he couldn't get his business so successful.
He didn't do the colonizing he is just the right sex/melatonin level and born into the right social class to benefit from it. All corperations must exploit workers or there would be no profit. 
Most people don't work minimum wage jobs.

Lets say you make $60/year
Most people also do not make 60000 a year. Let's say you need 30000 a year to live and you make 28000 because that is closer to the truth for most of us. If nothing goes wrong that is. 
If this was the case, then Jeff Bezos would have comparably rich sibilings
This is a non sequitur. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Any siblings he dies have are still more privileged than poor people of color.
Blacks tend to be less sucessful because they aim for different things than whites.  Females tend to be less sucessful because they tend to aim for different things than men.
I would be careful speaking for others and also making generalizations. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @secularmerlin
How are you risking more than your workers? Should you go out of buisness you both face possible destitution, homelessness and starvation. I would actually wager you would be better able to recover than the workers actually. Sounds like it is more of a risk for them.
Someone that owns $500K of stock is getting $50K/year from that stock.  A worker may earn $50K/year from their labor.  If the company goes bankrupt, I lose $500K and the worker loses their job and would have to find a new one (a process that usually takes about a year).  I lost $500K and the worker lost $50K.  I'm more at risk as an investor.

If only they weren't bothered with things like buying food and paying rent and dealing with systemic oppression. More to the point if only their parents would be wealthy and loan them money.
Workers aren't oppressed.  Food and rent are cheap for workers working 40 hours a week.  They use their excess funds to invest.  

I am glad you are a member of the religious in group to such a degree you feel that is an option for you. Must be nice.
Atheists can use the church for money as well if they need it.  Jesus made a former atheist the pope.  Christianity doesn't hate atheists.

Most people also do not make 60000 a year. Let's say you need 30000 a year to live and you make 28000 because that is closer to the truth for most of us. If nothing goes wrong that is. 
The median salary in the US is about $35K/year(median us salary - search results (bing.com)).  They live off $30K, and they invest the rest in the stock market.  People making less should find better jobs.

This is a non sequitur. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Any siblings he dies have are still more privileged than poor people of color.
I was saying that despite growing up in the same environment, Jeff Bezos ended up more successful that his siblings.  If America was a white supremist country, then minorities would be heading to the Bahamas instead of the US because the Bahamas are both rich and black majority.  But people are moving to the US because America's isn't racist.

Blacks tend to be less sucessful because they aim for different things than whites.  Females tend to be less sucessful because they tend to aim for different things than men.
I would be careful speaking for others and also making generalizations. 
I think Thomas Sowell wrote a book on why race groups end up in different places.  Blacks focus on certain things; whites focus on different things, and this produces different results.  Male and female brains are different that leads to different results for the genders.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,546
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
Someone that owns $500K of stock is getting $50K/year from that stock.  A worker may earn $50K/year from their labor.  If the company goes bankrupt, I lose $500K and the worker loses their job and would have to find a new one (a process that usually takes about a year).  I lost $500K and the worker lost $50K.  I'm more at risk as an investor.

Incorrect. You are failing to take into account how much more of a loss is for someone who only has 50k. Also you are simply assuming that another job is available. Workers do not choose which jobs are available or when.
Workers aren't oppressed.  Food and rent are cheap for workers working 40 hours a week.  They use their excess funds to invest.  
Man you really don't know what it is like to not have enough money to live on do you? For many people there are no excess funds.
The median salary in the US is about $35K/year(median us salary - search results (bing.com)).  They live off $30K, and they invest the rest in the stock market.  People making less should find better jobs.
Half of all people make less than the average. That is what average means. That is a definitional truth. As for better jobs workers do not decide what jobs are available or when.
I was saying that despite growing up in the same environment, Jeff Bezos ended up more successful that his siblings.  If America was a white supremist country, then minorities would be heading to the Bahamas instead of the US because the Bahamas are both rich and black majority.  But people are moving to the US because America's isn't racist.
The racism is systemic and even I'd all traces of oppressive policy where removed the effect of that racism would continue. For example bank loans (a critical component of starting a small business) are statistically far more likely to be awarded to white men than to women or people of color. There is no law that specifically says that this should he the case. It is enough that no law prevents it. That allows the systemic oppression to continue. 

Jeff Bezos did end making more profit than any of his siblings but I think you will find that mathematically there must be a top earner in any family. 
I think Thomas Sowell wrote a book on why race groups end up in different places.  Blacks focus on certain things; whites focus on different things, and this produces different results.  Male and female brains are different that leads to different results for the genders.
You think black people being more likely to be impoverished is the fault of black people and you don't think some racism is going on? Maybe examine that for a moment.