NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?
The definition of wealth differs from person to person.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? No/no.

if i never intend to own the means of production can i be considered a capitalist or capitalistwannabe?

as a happy member of the proletariat (except for the ownership of stock in the husbands 401k retirement plan--damn! does that make me a capitalist?) i expect to never be rich.

to me "rich" means the ability to purchase ridiculously expensive items that no one really needs. so if i can buy a yacht, a mansion, fancy cars, designer closthes, etc and never worry about being able to pay for them, im rich.

For the purpose of the rest of this post: Rich = to be earning more than the amount required to survive comfortably (including investing for retirement and any costs which may arise) (ie. having any disposable income)

At the moment I am not rich, however, in the future I hope to be able to fit under my classification of rich. The plan is to finish uni, work for a few years to build up a bit of savings/buy a house(or on the way to owning one) before I go and start doing the family thing.

I imagine after I graduate and have experience, I would probably be able to support 3 people + myself on my wage.

Right now I am not rich. But yes, I think I will be rich. You can't get through a career in my chosen field without earning quite a lot of money in the process.

The odd thing is that in recent months I have come to be convinced that even if I didn't earn extraordinary amounts of money I'd still do it, because I can't see myself doing anything else.

Plus, I need several very expensive cars.

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".


To start off with, Andaras is wrong on that count, as usual. I support a system which I perceive to be the most just, the most voluntary and the most liberal. Is it the one that would better my economic position the most? No, I have academic inclinations, so I'm never going to be rich. I'd benefit from some sort of centralized technocracy, rather than decentralized competition.

By the same token, though, Andaras supports a system that would not benefit his economic situation either. The Stalinist ideology he proposes is one which beats down all challengers to the centralized authority, and offers instead of real economic results, propaganda posters, military hardware, starvation and genocide.

The great failing that the prophet of Andaras' religion never rectified for was the value of ideas and the conceptualization of justice in different times and places. His system claims that the world is a clockwork, windup toy that will follow a set path, regardless.

Plus, I need several very expensive cars.

German, much? ;)

Yes...expensive cars rock.

Plus, I need several very expensive cars.
Can I hitch a ride? :)

To start off with, Andaras is wrong on that count, as usual. I support a system which I perceive to be the most just, the most voluntary and the most liberal. Is it the one that would better my economic position the most? No, I have academic inclinations, so I'm never going to be rich. I'd benefit from some sort of centralized technocracy, rather than decentralized competition.

By the same token, though, Andaras supports a system that would not benefit his economic situation either. The Stalinist ideology he proposes is one which beats down all challengers to the centralized authority, and offers instead of real economic results, propaganda posters, military hardware, starvation and genocide.

The great failing that the prophet of Andaras' religion never rectified for was the value of ideas and the conceptualization of justice in different times and places. His system claims that the world is a clockwork, windup toy that will follow a set path, regardless.


since most people are never going to be rich, i think my best economic interest is in a system that gives the best chance at a reasonable level of prosperity.

that seems to be a modified capitalist system where the monetarily ambitious can develop the economy and "make all boats rise" but is regulated to limit the abuse that such ambitious people can heap on the rest of us.

since most people are never going to be rich, i think my best economic interest is in a system that gives the best chance at a reasonable level of prosperity.

that seems to be a modified capitalist system where the monetarily ambitious can develop the economy and "make all boats rise" but is regulated to limit the abuse that such ambitious people can heap on the rest of us.

As much as I can't deal with how some people, who have become scared of the word "liberal", have embraced the word progressive as a substitute, Rooseveltian Progressivism is not that bad of a deal. We have to admit, there are rules to the game, and those rules must be followed if we want the system to work, and not collapse in on itself, like Marx predicted.

As to what is rich, that's a sliding scale that changes over time. In my pukey little campus apartment I have gathered more wealth and health than many kings of old could even comprehend. My 1996 Camry gives me greater mobility than a Roman Emperor, and my access to high quality alcoholic beverages would make feudal lords blush.

All the same, I am not rich.

IMO, being rich means you desire no more than you have.

Am i rich? No. Do i expect to ever be rich? No.

Am i a capitalist? No, i'm a social-democrat.

As to what is rich, that's a sliding scale that changes over time. In my pukey little campus apartment I have gathered more wealth and health than many kings of old could even comprehend. My 1996 Camry gives me greater mobility than a Roman Emperor, and my access to high quality alcoholic beverages would make feudal lords blush.


The second makes sense. But I'm not sure about the first and last. The first more so.

The second makes sense. But I'm not sure about the first and last. The first more so.

This janky-ass computer, and the information stored on it, would be worth all the gold in the vaults of Xerxes.

...
And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?

That question has to be answered first I think.

Minimum wage in the US is currently 5.85 per hour, and 5.85 x 8 hours a day is 46.80, and 46.80 x 5 day work week is 234.00 and 234 x 52 weeks a year is $12,168 annual income. And according to the Global Rich List (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) $12,168 US put that person in the top 12.84% richest people in the world.

I, on the other hand, think that if I only made minimum wage in the US I would be destitute and require public assistance or else me and my children would be homeless...


Side note: this thread requires a Poll, where is the Poll! ;)

define rich.

This janky-ass computer, and the information stored on it, would be worth all the gold in the vaults of Xerxes.

Hmm perhaps. I'm not convinced. It seems to be a perculiar modern myth.

Or maybe I'm looking at is the wrong way :)

Being rich to me is having the freedom to be able to do the majority of things one would want to do. Money provides freedom to do many things.

No and probably not unless I'm lucky.

Still supporting libertad. o/ o/ o/

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

Well. Andaras also believes that Stalin was a pretty swell guy and that genocide is morally acceptable. I'd take his comments with a grain of salt.

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

Seems like you already think you know the answer to the question, so why ask the question?

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich?

No, no.

To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

Uh, probably quite a bit. For example if I was as poor and underclass as Andaras would claim, I wouldn't have the luxury of being able to blather on about my political beliefs at all.

But I'm not, as you seem to think, a proponent of capitalism simply on the basis that it will benefit me. What kind of small-minded, narrow thinking is that?

- How would you define rich?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rich

In comparison to people living in other capitalist systems no not really.

however compared to people living in any system other then capitalism oh hell yeah.

This janky-ass computer, and the information stored on it, would be worth all the gold in the vaults of Xerxes.

that is just comparing different levels of technological development. your same computer and its info would also be hugely valuable if you could bring it back to the ww2 era, but that does not make you richer than the usian government of the time.

what matters is relative position in society (once you get beyond starvation level, at least). if you hold that constant while comparing across technological eras, then no, your amiga is not something of much value at all to xerxes.

I'm not a capitalist, but I'm studying medicine so I suppose I will earn enough to live comfortable.

since most people are never going to be rich, i think my best economic interest is in a system that gives the best chance at a reasonable level of prosperity.

that seems to be a modified capitalist system where the monetarily ambitious can develop the economy and "make all boats rise" but is regulated to limit the abuse that such ambitious people can heap on the rest of us.

I doubt I'm ever going to be rich, and the weird thing (perhaps) is - I really have no interest in being 'rich'. I'd just like to always have enough - and to me, that shouldn't be 'rich', that should just... be.

For me, I'll always favour the system that offers 'enough' to everyone. If the government balances out (or the free-market makes it happen, or whatever) so that no one ever need go hungry, be in need of a roof over their head, be in need of heat or light, adequate clothing... etc, I'm happy.

No one needs 36 bedroom houses or a yacht or a private plane. Any system that ends up with SOME people having those things whilst others can't feed their children, is fundamentally broken.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

I am very well off, yet I am more than happy to pay my taxes. The more I pay, the more I give to society. I am a communist in my beliefs. I am pro-universal healthcare, higher taxes for the rich, increased welfare, increased foreign aid, and so on.
Overall, I would think the fact that I am rich strengthens my beliefs. If I am willing to give up some of the $ I have for what I believe, it means I hold strongly to those opinions.

And according to the Global Rich List (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) $12,168 US put that person in the top 12.84% richest people in the world.

though it should be noted that even today large parts of the world aren't living in a cash economy - at least not fully immersed in it. which skews things a bit.

though it should be noted that even today large parts of the world aren't living in a cash economy - at least not fully immersed in it. which skews things a bit.

Also - 12k in the US might not even get you a place to stay....

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

I'm never going to be rich, since my chosen career pretty much rules that out. But then, I'm not a capitalist.

Also I do not believe that we should support a system that will benefit us individually. That is selfish and short sighted. We should support the system which we believe to be best for the country as a whole, since that will bring greater benefits to all, and will also benefit us indirectly.

My own ideals would bring me less benefits than a communist system would, but I still support that system over a communist one because I believe it is practically and ethically the best solution for the nation as a whole.

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?

Having access to goods and commodities that the lower class do not, and being able to build up significant reserves with which to protect yourself against future hardship.

I am a total free market capitalist and I am by no means rich. I have a small possibility of becoming rich when I'm done with my Ph.D (which will be in quite a while, since I'm still working on my M.A.). Simply working as a professor will only give me a comfortable living, but if I can write a book that sells really well there a SLIGHT possibility of hitting a gold mine. I'm not getting my hopes up considering every professor I know gets absolutely zero acclaim for their published works.

I am a total free market capitalist and I am by no means rich. I have a small possibility of becoming rich when I'm done with my Ph.D (which will be in quite a while, since I'm still working on my M.A.). Simply working as a professor will only give me a comfortable living, but if I can write a book that sells really well there a SLIGHT possibility of hitting a gold mine. I'm not getting my hopes up considering every professor I know gets absolutely zero acclaim for their published works.

If you become a professor and write a book, just put it on your students' required reading lists and you guarantee yourself some sales. That's what my professors do.

Well, CPAs are basically guaranteed a wide variety of employment opportunities and a high salary, so it's pretty likely I'll be wealthy as long as I manage my money wisely.

I doubt I'm ever going to be rich, and the weird thing (perhaps) is - I really have no interest in being 'rich'. I'd just like to always have enough - and to me, that shouldn't be 'rich', that should just... be.

For me, I'll always favour the system that offers 'enough' to everyone. If the government balances out (or the free-market makes it happen, or whatever) so that no one ever need go hungry, be in need of a roof over their head, be in need of heat or light, adequate clothing... etc, I'm happy.

No one needs 36 bedroom houses or a yacht or a private plane. Any system that ends up with SOME people having those things whilst others can't feed their children, is fundamentally broken.

i dont mind some people working hard (and lucky) to get the money for a mansion, a yacht, a private plane or whatever else they might spend their millions on.

i just dont want the deal that society gives them to be at the expense of the guy who is having a hard time feeding his family. by and large i dont think that that is the case in the western "capitalist" countries. granted that now and then things have to be adjusted to keep it that way.

If you become a professor and write a book, just put it on your students' required reading lists and you guarantee yourself some sales. That's what my professors do.

Heh. That wasn't allowed where I went to school. But that would be a nice racket. :p

Anyway, I don't expect to be rich in the way that t.v. and movies would have it, but I'll probably be comfortable eventually.

I'm afraid I'm already rich. My family once used to own cotton factories and plantations (we live in the UK). Sold it all and made an absolute killing. I could probably never work if I didnt want to, but Im joining the RAF as a pilot, got my scholarship papers a week ago.

I'm a convinced socialist, and though I'm not rich at all I do like to entertain the illusion that someday I'll be obscenely rich and feel guilty for it. You just can't win at life ;)

Depends on who I marry

Although I wouldn't consider myself rich, my family does have enough money to live a comfortable life. But do I think I will ever be rich?

I'm absolutely certain of it.

As someone who ranks 10 on the right of the economic scale of political compass, I do not consider myself rich. However, if I were given the opportunity I would gladly take it (I think my learning finance will help me in this endeavor.) Whether or not I become rich, I do prefer to be left to my own devices so as to use my property for my advancement through various mutually beneficial exchanges.

I will be rich if that's what I decide to do with my life. Otherwise, I will accept the consequences of my decision to the contrary and enjoy what I dedicate myself towards.

i am not rich, though i do have things quite easy (living with parents = no rent/mortgage, and no utilities bills, though i do very often get groceries etc). my family is certainly not rich, largely as we're still paying off debts from the '92 recession, and my folks work for practically nothing... though they're working on improving that situation. long story short, before they took on new employees at their business, they got paid. now for the last year and a bit they've been paying for the new employees out of their own paypackets because the new people were needed to up the outputs of the business. increases in turnover are lagging behind but will come...


does any of this influence my political views? yes. i hate the tories for what their government did to this country throughout the 80's, but particularly for what their engineered recession did to our family in 1992. however, being half on the business-owner side of things, i hate to see so much in the way of business taxes and employee rights. that's not to say i, personally, don't believe both are essential and good, but that extending maternity leave, increases in corp taxes, etc, can really cripple small businesses. i was very glad when Brown re-introduced special dispensation on corp tax for SME's bringing it back below the 10% threshold (iirc), a few months ago. however, i gladly pay my taxes for the benefit of the public sector and would be quite happy with some increases.

i've been on both sides of the fence. very wealthy, very spoilt kid growing up in a large semi-mansion in Winchester, to losing the house and learning some fucking humility, growing up proper in the real world and having to work for what i wanted. it was a good lesson.


as usual i've said to much :p

but i do plan on being "rich" one day. work hard, hard, hard on building up the business, build up the value, and sell it at its peak. buy nice apartment and Bentley (:D), put money in bank, get normal 9-5 less stressful job, and not have to worry about money for once in my life. its a plan.

To confirm I never said that everyone who supports such ideologies is rich, I said that it's logical and rational that only people who own bourgeois property (means of production) will support that property because THEY OWN IT. While the unpropertied working masses, who have no control and power over the great forces of production in society, will support Communism as Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat and gives to each the full product of their labor.

Objectively speaking politics, philosophy, religion, morality come under the base and superstructure of the social system, so if the social system is capitalism (bourgeois property) then those politics etc will support the economic base which empowers them. I never look to the 'brave words' of ideologies to discern them, one must never look to the propaganda of an ideology to see it's interests but to it's economic base from which all it's power comes.

But at the end of the day the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois are small classes and it will not be them who decide the future but the vast working masses, the great class of the workers and builders of the world, the old bourgeois regime is nothing but a rotten crumbling edifice.

I'm a student right now, but I expect the educational path I've chosen will make me rich someday.

At present, I'm neither rich nor poor. My family's income is a good deal above the national average, however, not sufficiently so so as to have an appreciable impact upon either our standard of living, or ability to fund my university. Given that we live in the south east, I suspect our household income is not as high, in a local context, as it is in comparison to the national average. In short, middle class; culturally my parents are more lower middle class, and myself more upper middle class, but economically middle class.

And yes, I should imagine I will be wealthy.

I'm solidly middle class and do not anticipate my relative standing in the US to change significantly. So long as the US remains somewhat market oriented, and politicians do not actually cater to populist idiocy, I see my absolute wealth increasing dramatically in the future.

There was an interesting article a while ago comparing the poorest person in the US they could find (some old hillbilly in West Virginia) with a rather solidly upper-class doctor in Nigeria. Guess which one had a higher standard of living?

Capitalism allows for substantial inequalities of wealth, which also drives the substantial building of wealth. When it comes to choosing between enjoying a good standard of living, while a few enjoy much better standards of living, or living a poor standard of living but everyone else is equally poor, I will always choose the former. Socialism may provide a temporary improvement in the lives of the poorest in a society, and immediate harm to the wealthier, it makes everyone worse off.

There is a well known bias for people to view the current situation with pessimism and to idealize the past - take the cliche of elderly people talking about 'the good old days'. I have a standard of living beyond the dreams of the wealthiest and most powerful of men a century ago. The quality of foods available in my local supermarket alone highlight the improvements in just the last decade. I can get some amazingly exotic foods, and even fresh fruits at any time of the year. We take for granted that, within just a few minutes, we can have just about whatever kind of food we want at anytime, for a tiny portion of our incomes.

I do not believe that income inequalities harm anyone (jealousy on the part of small minded people, yes. actual harm, none at all), where as a lack of wealth most assuredly does. Thus, even the poorest in a society should support maintaining a market economy, for even they lose out in anything but the short term.

Spend some time in Malawi and you will get a great appreciation for just what poverty is, and why someone complaining about not being able to afford a lot more luxury goods while working a mere 40 hours a week (if that) is fairly ridiculous. When even the 'poor downtrodden workers' in a capitalist society worry about obesity being an "epidemic", sticking with it is actually in their best interest.

If you feel that living in a capitalist country is abhorrent, we can simulate a socialist one for you: simply take 2/3 of your income and give it to the government or a charity to support those you think are getting 'screwed over' by capitalism. Get everyone else who thinks socialism is the way to go to do the same thing.

Wait, sorry, being able to choose to give your money to a charity is a free economic choice... if you have enough spare cash to give away, obviously you are exploiting someone worse off than you are and should have your unfair wealth redistributed by the committee.

I'm not rich. I probably will never be rich. And, to be honest, I really don't have any strong desire to be rich. Would I mind being rich? Of course not. But the collection of wealth is not and probably will not be my driving force in life.

I'm always relieved when I come by some money. Quite simply, a few hundred bucks is enough that I stop worrying about where the next fifty is coming from, and don't have to make plans to go out and earn some.

But that's about where my ambition ends. Rationally, I'd concentrate on one job until I had a decent income, save or invest it so I never had to worry about affording food etc again. But I just can't take work and money that seriously, the need for money is just like a pest I swat each time it bites me.

Honestly, I think I'm afraid of being rich. I'd feel quite a burden of responsibility to do something worthwhile with it. It's easier to be selfish with only a few hundred bucks at a time, you can't make long term plans about that kind of money. It will be gone in a week or two.

I'm poor. The way things look right now I'll be that way for a long while. It doesn't influence my political beliefs.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?

I ain't rich in a monetary sense. My economic status probably has huge implications for my political beliefs.

Definitions of being rich vary. I'd say it would rely on a high paid job, some investments, a few expensive cars. This would probably involve going to a prestigious university for contacts high up, then getting a job with someone who knows you (and who is also well paid). then well you're rich. easy. Of course this doesn't take into account, self made millionaires who got lucky and the mega rich, but i doubt there's many of them on the internet. oh and it doesn't account for those who manage to study really hard and get lucky with a good job, but i don't know any people like that so i left that one out.

I'm poor. The way things look right now I'll be that way for a long while. It doesn't influence my political beliefs.
Wow, so you'll sit around hoping that 'one day I'll be rich!'....?

Wow, so you'll sit around hoping that 'one day I'll be rich!'....?
I'd rather be a poor and hungry man than a fed slave.

To confirm I never said that everyone who supports such ideologies is rich, I said that it's logical and rational that only people who own bourgeois property (means of production) will support that property because THEY OWN IT. While the unpropertied working masses, who have no control and power over the great forces of production in society, will support Communism as Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat and gives to each the full product of their labor.

In other words, you are claiming that self-interest and purely selfish motives are what drive people of any ideology, including that of your own.

...Wait, weren't you supposed to be an ANTI capitalist sock puppet?

In other words, you are claiming that self-interest and purely selfish motives are what drive people of any ideology, including that of your own.

...Wait, weren't you supposed to be an ANTI capitalist sock puppet?

Self-interest is what drives class struggle. If exploitation becomes too great, seizing the means of production is in the interest of the proletariat. Not because this is any more "fair", but because they stand to profit more that way.

Besides, isn't it generally the right-wingers that claim people aren't motivated by greed? You know, the ones who think abolishing all social programs and replacing them with charities would be a good idea?

I'd rather be a poor and hungry man than a fed slave.
You are a slave, one from the corporations (that sentence sounds...icky). You have to accept certain things, or you're severly screwed, like a slave (ofcourse, not a slave like a Roman one or something, but I think you know what I mean).
Anyway, I kind of support capitalism in a way, but real capitalism. In the world we live in, there is no real capitalism, no real free market. It's government supported/controlled corporatism (the corporatism part to some extend). Wich I do not agree, and in fact deeply hate and despise, is the fact that profit is far more important then human beings. There is nothing wrong with getting rich, but I do question things like sacking 3.000 people just to make 50 million dollars extra profit, even though they already made 2 billion dollars profit. It's a really strange sociallogical phenomenon to me, it may have something to do with our monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)

Self-interest is what drives class struggle. If exploitation becomes too great, seizing the means of production is in the interest of the proletariat. Not because this is any more "fair", but because they stand to profit more that way.

So basically it's not about the "public good" or any of that nonsense, it's merely the have-nots taking from the haves so they have more profit.


Besides, isn't it generally the right-wingers that claim people aren't motivated by greed? You know, the ones who think abolishing all social programs and replacing them with charities would be a good idea?

No, it's usually the left who claims that personal interest and greed are, at best, on par with the public good and community and all that, in terms of importance.

I for one recognize self-interest as a motivating factor, and it's why I've always seen socialism as little more than legalized theft coated with a thin, greasy veneer of self-righteous bullshit.

No I'm not rich.
I hope to be rich.
But I'm not a capatalist for either reason.

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?

First of all, I am a capitalist. I am VERY fiscally conservative.

Second, I fully believe that I will be wealthy. I am getting a good degree, have shown success in my field already, have been quickly promoted in any job I've ever gotten, and have a drive and desire I don't see much in my peers.

It is QUITE possible for ANY American to make well over a million dollars, and possibly much more, in his or her lifetime if he or she makes the right moves. It I fully intend to do so and am already well on my way.

Now as far as "rich" goes, I define that as someone who never has to worry about money. Someone who can go out and buy a high-end Mercedes right off the lot and not finance it one bit. That kind of wealth is a combination of luck and hard work. You can make a whole lot of money with either luck or hard work, but to be that "rich" you need both.

Do people support the political movement that best supports them financially? You bet your ass they do. There's a reason workers join unions instead of CEO's. There's a reason why low-income families support welfare and socialist policies and those of wealth don't.

Im very rich but in kind of a different way. I own a passive interest in a Real Estate venture and its not a huge amount of money a year but enough if i spend wisely and choose to pass on health insurance, i can live and own a home and get by with never having to work a day in my life unless i want to. I consider not having a single human in the whole world that can tell me what to do in any way shape or form to be a very enriching experience. Its not the amount of money that makes me rich, its freeing up the 40 hours a week of indentured servitude that makes me feel rich.

First of all, I am a capitalist. I am VERY fiscally conservative.
Explain please :)
I consider not having a single human in the whole world that can tell me what to do in any way shape or form to be a very enriching experience.
Dream on baby ;) You bet your ass there are.

Explain please :)

explain what part? :)

explain what part? :)
The sentence I quoted ;) It's really vague, because when lots of people say "capitalism", they mean totally different things then real capitalism. It's important to clear things up before engaging in any form of discussion, because before you know things get really messed up simply because people think they know what they mean, when the opposite side thinks to know something completly different ;)

Explain please :)

Dream on baby ;) You bet your ass there are.

How do you figure, beyond a general concept of me being told by a government to not run around murdering people and pay your taxes im pretty much in the clear. I go to bed when i wish, i wake up when i wish, i eat what i wish when i wish, girlfriends understand that i live a bachelor lifestyle and seem to be ok with it. And i have to answer to noone. Not a boss, not a wife, parents and siblings dont care what i do as long as i dont make any trouble, im happy thier happy, everyones happy. Its all good.

Ofcourse there is more, taxes for example. But ofcourse I get the concept: you're your own boss, instead of an employee.

The sentence I quoted ;) It's really vague, because when lots of people say "capitalism", they mean totally different things then real capitalism. It's important to clear things up before engaging in any form of discussion, because before you know things get really messed up simply because people think they know what they mean, when the opposite side thinks to know something completly different ;)

Hmm...I get ya. Well...

Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned, are operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, using money, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.

That pretty much sums it up, I'd say. As far as being fiscally conservative, I believe in low government spending, low government involvement in business, and not participating in deficit spending, all very typical fiscal conservative viewpoints.

That pretty much sums it up, I'd say. As far as being fiscally conservative, I believe in low government spending, low government involvement in business, and not participating in deficit spending, all very typical fiscal conservative viewpoints.
If only today's world was capitalistic in that way, wich it isn't. Kinda sucks balls, because it would solve some problems, especially in 3th World country's.
But low government spending? Well, ofcourse people should do as much as they can themselfs, the government is an institution we selected to help us do things we can't do ourselfs. That's where taxes are for ofcourse, the money we give them to spend for our behalve (the problem is, is that it doesn't seem to work that way anymore, wich sucks loads of balls). The problem is, people can't do a lot themselfs, because they're egocentric greedy pricks. Just look at the US healthcare system. For some reason, I think that the political group we usually think of when we talk about economical conservatism, wich are ofcourse the Republicans, aren't real economical convervatists. Also, I won't call it "conservatism" either, since it sure as hell means lots of things need to be changed ;)

The problem with health care is a trifold of sorts of issues.

First off, too many people want something for nothing, or a "free lunch" as it is. Now, ECON 101 will tell you that "there is no such thing as a free lunch." So who pays for these health care costs? The government through taxes, aka me. I fail to understand why it is my responsibility to pay for medicine for a chain-smoking woman living in a trailer park who was recently diagnosed with lung cancer. She should have went to school and picked up a different habit. Maybe if she didn't spend so much on cigarettes she could pay for medicine. These type of people simply want the government to steal honest people's money and it is disgusting.

Second, the US Governmental Bureaucracy is notoriously slow, filled with inept workers who are only working for a paycheck and don't care about their job, and surrounded by layers of pointless paperwork as well as endless red tape. Do you want the government handling your medical needs? Sure you may save some money, but when your medicine arrives at your door a year and a half after you're already dead I doubt it matters much. Bills are a part of life.

You said the government is for things that we can't do ourselves. I completely agree. However, too many people think that the government is for things that they're simply to lazy to do themselves. They want that big-screen TV instead. They want those big spinning rims and diamond earrings instead of paying for their own health care.

As soon as the government starts handing out medicine for free, they start controlling who it goes to and how much goes out. You no longer have a say in the matter, after all, you're not paying anything. So if you need 2000mg of amoxicilin (spl?) a day to cure that nasty sinus infection, but the government only thinks you need 1000mg thanks to President Whoever's cost-cutting policies, then you never really get better, and instead just get immune to the medicine. Not really worth one less bill a month, is it?

First of all, I am a capitalist. I am VERY fiscally conservative.

Second, I fully believe that I will be wealthy. I am getting a good degree, have shown success in my field already, have been quickly promoted in any job I've ever gotten, and have a drive and desire I don't see much in my peers.

It is QUITE possible for ANY American to make well over a million dollars, and possibly much more, in his or her lifetime if he or she makes the right moves. It I fully intend to do so and am already well on my way.

Now as far as "rich" goes, I define that as someone who never has to worry about money. Someone who can go out and buy a high-end Mercedes right off the lot and not finance it one bit. That kind of wealth is a combination of luck and hard work. You can make a whole lot of money with either luck or hard work, but to be that "rich" you need both.

Do people support the political movement that best supports them financially? You bet your ass they do. There's a reason workers join unions instead of CEO's. There's a reason why low-income families support welfare and socialist policies and those of wealth don't.

Nope - to be that kind of wealthy you have to be lucky - hard work is almost irrelevent. Ina s much as - you CAN be that wealthy with luck and hard work... or you can be that wealthy with luck and NO hardwork. Luck is the operative part.

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?

I'm a capitalist, and yes I am rich.

The problem with health care is a trifold of sorts of issues.

First off, too many people want something for nothing, or a "free lunch" as it is. Now, ECON 101 will tell you that "there is no such thing as a free lunch." So who pays for these health care costs? The government through taxes, aka me. I fail to understand why it is my responsibility to pay for medicine for a chain-smoking woman living in a trailer park who was recently diagnosed with lung cancer. She should have went to school and picked up a different habit. Maybe if she didn't spend so much on cigarettes she could pay for medicine. These type of people simply want the government to steal honest people's money and it is disgusting.

Second, the US Governmental Bureaucracy is notoriously slow, filled with inept workers who are only working for a paycheck and don't care about their job, and surrounded by layers of pointless paperwork as well as endless red tape. Do you want the government handling your medical needs? Sure you may save some money, but when your medicine arrives at your door a year and a half after you're already dead I doubt it matters much. Bills are a part of life.

You said the government is for things that we can't do ourselves. I completely agree. However, too many people think that the government is for things that they're simply to lazy to do themselves. They want that big-screen TV instead. They want those big spinning rims and diamond earrings instead of paying for their own health care.

As soon as the government starts handing out medicine for free, they start controlling who it goes to and how much goes out. You no longer have a say in the matter, after all, you're not paying anything. So if you need 2000mg of amoxicilin (spl?) a day to cure that nasty sinus infection, but the government only thinks you need 1000mg thanks to President Whoever's cost-cutting policies, then you never really get better, and instead just get immune to the medicine. Not really worth one less bill a month, is it?
Ho ho relax :D I just sad that a private system like the one in the US does not work because people are egocentric greedy pricks, we can see that clearly. I just say that I think the government needs to help in a certain way, I do not know in wich details, because the current private system does not work (hospitals are not busnisesses for example). I also realise that to make help effective, more things need to change. I'de love to see the public do healthcare themselfs, problem is we really need a morality change for that. I'de like to see that come instead of government help, but I wonder what's needed for such a switch.

I am not rich. I hope to one day be rich.

To me, wealth is the ability to live without the need for debt. I owe nothing to the credit card companies, my car is paid for, my college is paid for, and I am saving to purchase a house. So, 'rich' is the state of being able to pay up front for both necessities and luxuries, owning my home, and having no debt. Thus far, I can pay cash up front for necessities and a few luxuries and have no debt, but I rent an apartment. I have some savings, and I plan to invest in the company 401k program as soon as I have been there a year (it's one of the conditions for that program). They match 4%, so if I fund it with just 6% of my paycheck, 10% of my pay goes into the fund. That should allow comfortable wealth at retirement 45-50 years from now.

So, 'rich' is the state of being able to pay up front for both necessities and luxuries
This presents a problem, because where is the limit then? What's the limit from "luxuries"? We alwayse want more and more and more, it's never enough, where does it stop? People get used to luxury, our lives already contains craploads of luxury (we're posting on the internet, wich means we have internet and time to post, both considered luxuries for LOADS of people). And still, we want more, we're never satisfied.

To be rich is to be able to pay somebody to take care of every detail of life that you don't want to yourself.

To be wealthy is to be rich and not have to work.

I'm a capitalist; I don't know if I want to be rich or not, but I definitely want to make lots of money.

It's telling to see the level of cynical obscuration by bourgeois supports in this thread, who desperately try to cover up class struggles under long words while avoiding the vast working masses who live from week to week entirely on the sale of their labor. Sickening.

It's telling to see the level of cynical obscuration by bourgeois supports in this thread, who desperately try to cover up class struggles under long words while avoiding the vast working masses who live from week to week entirely on the sale of their labor. Sickening.

"Class Struggles" are a tool of those who seek to take from the productive and give to the unproductive. The vast majority of millionaires are people who invested wisely and worked hard to get their reward. There are certainly some who struggle financially through no fault of their own, and I am willing to help them. I don't think it's the government's job to take my responsibility to my fellow man because the government is always inefficient. I have earned minimum wage. I make more than that now, and in a few years I expect to make 5 times minimum wage. I'd say the majority of those here in the government wealth-redistribution scheme drive newer cars than I do and have nicer televisions. Is that right?

"Class Struggles" are a tool of those who seek to take from the productive and give to the unproductive.

Class struggle is a tool of everyone, proletariat or bourgeoisie. All class struggle means is that employers wish to minimize expenses while employees try to maximize their own profit. It's not some kind of political protest.

I fully support Capitalism, though I am not rich, nor will I likely ever be rich.

I define rich as being able to buy food and gas without feeling that the prices are taking a heavy bite out of your wallet.

It's telling to see the level of cynical obscuration by bourgeois supports in this thread, who desperately try to cover up class struggles under long words while avoiding the vast working masses who live from week to week entirely on the sale of their labor. Sickening.

The CEOs of investment banks live on the sale of their labor. What gives?

The rentier societies of 19th century Europe about which Marxism was written are dead.

It is QUITE possible for ANY American to make well over a million dollars, and possibly much more, in his or her lifetime if he or she makes the right moves. It I fully intend to do so and am already well on my way.Sure. 20K a year over 50 years = 1 million dollars.

"Class Struggles" are a tool of those who seek to take from the productive and give to the unproductive. The vast majority of millionaires are people who invested wisely and worked hard to get their reward.If you're investing, you're not producing anything, the people who used your investment are the ones producing. (Yes, you can invest in yourself, such as in paying for a college education, but this type of investment isn't a large part of investments.)

The CEOs of investment banks live on the sale of their labor. What gives?

The rentier societies of 19th century Europe about which Marxism was written are dead.

No, they live (and make excess profit) on the extraction of surplus value from the exploitation of their capital (workers).

The pro-bourgeois constantly try to obscure the true reality of hard working families who simply live from wage to wage from week to week barely making ends meet from the sale of their labor at ever increasing hours and ever lowering conditions.

You best open your eyes to the world instead of hiding in your bourgeois fantasies. You can use as much fancy words like 'share holder' and 'stocks' but that is ALL the domain of the rich, the common working people don't know anything about that crap, and they don't care, all they are trying to do is make ends meet.

I am not at all concerned with being what most would consider rich.

My desire is to see an economic system where one is allowed to seek fair compensation for what one has contributed to others. I feel that modern standards of what is an acceptable level of wealth is absurd.

I am not at all concerned with being what most would consider rich.

My desire is to see an economic system where one is allowed to seek fair compensation for what one has contributed to others. I feel that modern standards of what is an acceptable level of wealth is absurd.

Capitalism is absurd just by looking at the numbers of distribution, that requires no more discussion. Capitalism is an absurd system because of the sheer amount of overproduction and waste, a system so absurd that one individual can control the needs of millions and another individual not even control their own needs.

In short, in need freedom is latent.

What I advocate is that each worker should be freed from wage-labor, whereupon they receive only a tiny portion of the value of their productivity, and instead give to each the full product of their labor.

The bourgeois are unfit to rule because they are incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

Call me cynical but when I hear promises of vast prosperity from a man with a grin from ear to ear all I can think of is "Now when exactly is he planning on stabbing me in the back?"

Remember kids, the bigger the smile, the sharper the knife. Trust no one, especially someone who claims to have your best interests at heart.

First off, too many people want something for nothing, or a "free lunch" as it is. Now, ECON 101 will tell you that "there is no such thing as a free lunch." So who pays for these health care costs? The government through taxes, aka me. I fail to understand why it is my responsibility to pay for medicine for a chain-smoking woman living in a trailer park who was recently diagnosed with lung cancer. She should have went to school and picked up a different habit. Maybe if she didn't spend so much on cigarettes she could pay for medicine. These type of people simply want the government to steal honest people's money and it is disgusting.


I didn't really want to get into debates about a lack of government interference because that's not really what this thread is about but, just on a personal level, the only thing I find disgusting about the above is that you can only think of the tragedy of someone getting lung cancer in terms of how it affects you.

I seriously have to laugh when people argue that 'capitalism is good' on the basis of bourgeois economic theory, it's like saying Nazism is good and 'proving' it by quoting from Mein Kempf.

Capitalism is absurd just by looking at the numbers of distribution, that requires no more discussion. Capitalism is an absurd system because of the sheer amount of overproduction and waste, a system so absurd that one individual can control the needs of millions and another individual not even control their own needs.

Capitalism did not bring about the current system.

Understand that markets and property rights were not drawn upon a blank canvas.

What I advocate is that each worker should be freed from wage-labor, whereupon they receive only a tiny portion of the value of their productivity, and instead give to each the full product of their labor.

Wage-labor is not the cause of exploitation.

A free and equal bargaining partner may still opt into a wage paying position to avoid the risk and time involved in capital investment.

Yes/Yes

Yes/Yes

That was easy.

Am I the only one who finds the delusional rantings in this thread - from across the spectrum - really rather entertaining?

1) No children, the people in trailer parks aren't there because they want to be there or because of poor choices most of the time - you don't really have that much room to make wrong choices in life when you haven't been given an education.

2) Vanguardist leftism has historically proven to be far more oppresive than even the current American fascism (yes, contrary to common opinion, capitalism has been dead for about 70 years now).

Now can we all stop invoking our mantras ("capitalism" and "burgeois oppressio" respectively) and get back to the topic? :)

I seriously have to laugh when people argue that 'capitalism is good' on the basis of bourgeois economic theory, it's like saying Nazism is good and 'proving' it by quoting from Mein Kempf.

Or saying that communism is good on the basis of communist economic theory.

Keep laughing, at yourself.

*snip*
Now can we all stop invoking our mantras ("capitalism" and "burgeois oppressio" respectively) and get back to the topic? :)

I'm not sure "capitalism" is a mantra, as they're supposed to be easy to repeat. "capitalism capitalism capitalism" does not go smoothly.

Shorten it till "capi" then, that sounds much better.
Anyway,
(yes, contrary to common opinion, capitalism has been dead for about 70 years now)
QFT really, true capitalism isn't there and the Republicans who are often linked to capitalism don't advocate true capitalism.

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?

I am not rich, have never been rich, and will probably never be rich.

Rich meaning having far more income than I need to keep myself in food, clothing, shelter, basic social activities, and personal growth.

I didn't really want to get into debates about a lack of government interference because that's not really what this thread is about but, just on a personal level, the only thing I find disgusting about the above is that you can only think of the tragedy of someone getting lung cancer in terms of how it affects you.

It's hardly a tragedy if it's self caused, which it was in the example I offered.

It's hardly a tragedy if it's self caused, which it was in the example I offered.

Strictly, tragedy requires the coincidence of hubris and fate; both the Gods, and one's own failings, bring about a fall from grace.

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?

If by capitalist you mean a supporter of the free market, then yes, I am. Am I rich? No, just lower-middle class. Do I think I will be rich? Possibly. I've been admitted into the business school at my college and I will probably end up either going into a business or a political/gov't career. Though I'm more interested in the prospect of managing a corporation than I am at the prospect of getting wealthy, which doesn't appeal to me that much.

That was easy.

Totally was.

I will never be rich, mainly because I don't care that much, but I am still a capitalist.

There is no society that doesn't have poor people. The poor people in communist countries don't seem to be doing too well.

I'm a French town dweller, to use the commie argot, but in reality a member of the middle class.

More likely than not I'll die somewhere further up the rungs of the middle class than my already comfortable position, probably rich judging by the career I intend to follow.

Nope - to be that kind of wealthy you have to be lucky - hard work is almost irrelevent. Ina s much as - you CAN be that wealthy with luck and hard work... or you can be that wealthy with luck and NO hardwork. Luck is the operative part.

You also need breeding. If you don't have the right family who don't send you to the right schools, you may become comfortable to a degree, but your not going to be in the ultra-elite.

It's not right or wrong, it just is.

Strictly, tragedy requires the coincidence of hubris and fate; both the Gods, and one's own failings, bring about a fall from grace.

Haha, please don't try and school a writer on Aristotle. Tragedy can simply mean a calamity.

This is something I've been wondering about for two reasons. The first is that Andaras made a comment that got me thinking that was along the lines of: "you should - and probably do - support the political movement that improves your own economic position".

And secondly I've noticed that many of the users on here who are big capitalism fans are people who think that in future they will be rich.

So, resident capitalists: Are you rich/ do you think you will be rich? To what extent do you think your economic status/prospects influence your political beliefs?

And so as not to exclude the rest of NSG and to give us some context, a FREE BONUS QUESTION!!
- How would you define rich?


This is a very nice discussion thread. Kudos. I am a capitalist. I also support regulating business to protect worker safety, consumer safety, and the environment. I also support the use of protective tariffs to promote domestic economic growth. I also support policies that encourage wealthy foreigners to move here part time or full time for the purpose of operating and or investing in businesses. I am an American. I hope that is enough of my political beliefs and background concerning economic policy. If anyone has any additional questions I would be happy to answer them.

I expect to become rich. My definition of "rich" is that passive income equals or exceeds life expenses. I also think that the growth of one's passive income needs to equal or exceed inflation and has a high likelihood of continuing to do so for the remainder of one's life and the life of one's spouse.

I am not rich yet. I plan to become wealthy by reducing debt and building passive income through investments. I do this with money I receive from my wages.

I think that my support of capitalism has more to do with historical and academic studies of the pros and cons of capitalism and other economic models than it does my lot in life. I am interested in economics and I read a lot about investing.

I think my love of capitalism also comes from my upbringing. My parents always encouraged saving and investing.

Capitalism vs. socialism, traditional economy, etc. is only part of the question of political views of economics. Other issues like the environment and worker safety, free vs. protectionist trade, and consumer safety are also important. Any economic system must address these issues in some way even if only by ignoring them. My views on these issues are influenced by historical study and the realization that economics does not exist in an isolated vaccum but is a powerful force for progress or harm in our world.

if i never intend to own the means of production can i be considered a capitalist or capitalistwannabe?

as a happy member of the proletariat (except for the ownership of stock in the husbands 401k retirement plan--damn! does that make me a capitalist?) i expect to never be rich.

to me "rich" means the ability to purchase ridiculously expensive items that no one really needs. so if i can buy a yacht, a mansion, fancy cars, designer closthes, etc and never worry about being able to pay for them, im rich.

If you and your husband own stock, then yes you are a capitalist. According to your definition of "rich" people whom I would consider rich would be poor. I am not saying your definition of rich is bad it is just interesting to see the different ways people define "rich".

Well, I'm not really a capitalist, more of a pragmatist. I'm not rich, but richer than I would be with government employees running the economy, I expect.

If you and your husband own stock, then yes you are a capitalist. According to your definition of "rich" people whom I would consider rich would be poor. I am not saying your definition of rich is bad it is just interesting to see the different ways people define "rich".

which makes marxist analysis all the more useless in modern economies.

do you mean that they would be monetarily poor by that definition?

This is a very nice discussion thread. Kudos. I am a capitalist. I also support regulating business to protect worker safety, consumer safety, and the environment. I also support the use of protective tariffs to promote domestic economic growth. I also support policies that encourage wealthy foreigners to move here part time or full time for the purpose of operating and or investing in businesses. I am an American. I hope that is enough of my political beliefs and background concerning economic policy. If anyone has any additional questions I would be happy to answer them.
The first poses a problem, since business regulations stand in the market's way wich is 1 of the cores of capitalism.
But I've got a little question then, wich is more important: maintaining protective tarrifs so the domestic growth raises from, let's say, 3% to 3.7%, or dropping protective tarrifs wich would mean your economic growth would stay the same or drop slightly but wich also means you create an open market (wich is more capitalistic) wich helps 3th world countries as well getting out of the hellholes there in right now.

You also need breeding. If you don't have the right family who don't send you to the right schools, you may become comfortable to a degree, but your not going to be in the ultra-elite.

It's not right or wrong, it just is.

No, it's wrong. But it is how it is.

The death of capitalism (not it's overthrow, I think - but the point at which it becomes irrelevent) will be one of the signs when we finally become 'civilised'.

No, it's wrong. But it is how it is.

The death of capitalism (not it's overthrow, I think - but the point at which it becomes irrelevent) will be one of the signs when we finally become 'civilised'.

I don't know. Capitalism comes from the idea of individualism and Enlightenment liberalism. If its lack is a sign of being civilized, we have only been uncivilized for less than 500 years.

However, I agree that it will eventually morph into something new. The people of the future will probably consider it to be a superior economic system, just as we consider capitalism to be superior to the feudal serfdom it replaced.