Why are some people so rich and some people so poor?

People have been greedy, lazy, cruel, and incompetent since the dawn of history. What does that have to do with one particular economic system?

Palantas

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Because of capitalism.kingkong0124

Are you being serious about this?

You insult me more than you intend to by calling me that

It'd be hard for me to name another group of people who annoy me more than Marxists

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

Are you being serious about this?

-Sun_Tzu-

You insult me more than you intend to by calling me that

It'd be hard for me to name another group of people who annoy me more than Marxists

Nothing, but the economic system that was around during the time of Louis XVI can't explain why there is so much income and wealth inequality in today's world. Since the Neolithic revolution there's always been some degree of economic inequality, for a variety of reasons depending on the time period. For our time period now, that reason is capitalism. -Sun_Tzu-

Then I'd suggest that the reason is human nature. Capitalism is incidental.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Nothing, but the economic system that was around during the time of Louis XVI can't explain why there is so much income and wealth inequality in today's world. Since the Neolithic revolution there's always been some degree of economic inequality, for a variety of reasons depending on the time period. For our time period now, that reason is capitalism. Palantas

Then I'd suggest that the reason is human nature. Capitalism is incidental.

Capitalism as we know it and crony capitalism go hand in hand. All the resources brought from Africa at the expense of aboriginal populatiopns that were enslaved and killed because of it has fulled capitalism in the whole world. Those people lived better before as hunter gatherers than now.kuraimen

No they don't. That's like saying religion and government go hand in hand.

Capitalism as we know it and crony capitalism go hand in hand. All the resources brought from Africa at the expense of aboriginal populatiopns that were enslaved and killed because of it has fulled capitalism in the whole world. Those people lived better before as hunter gatherers than now.kuraimen

I'm sure that's true, kuraimen. You need to start a foundation to establish a tract of land where African-Americans can go live as hunter gatherers, as that is a better living than their present life in America.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Nothing, but the economic system that was around during the time of Louis XVI can't explain why there is so much income and wealth inequality in today's world. Since the Neolithic revolution there's always been some degree of economic inequality, for a variety of reasons depending on the time period. For our time period now, that reason is capitalism. Palantas

Then I'd suggest that the reason is human nature. Capitalism is incidental.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Capitalism as we know it and crony capitalism go hand in hand. All the resources brought from Africa at the expense of aboriginal populatiopns that were enslaved and killed because of it has fulled capitalism in the whole world. Those people lived better before as hunter gatherers than now.Palantas

I'm sure that's true, kuraimen. You need to start a foundation to establish a tract of land where African-Americans can go live as hunter gatherers, as that is a better living than their present life in America.

Oh I wasn't arguing that the state giving the company the money was capitalistic. Just saying that it didn't really seem like the government was forcing the company overseas.

At any rate I'm not going to try to argue that capitalism is evil. I just don't buy into the idea that it's this totally wonderful thing that benefits everyone (hell the name itself implies that at some point in the chain you're capitalizing on (ie: taking advantage of) somebody else). It is like any other human system - imperfect and with its own set of pros and cons.

worlock77

Governments force companies overseas by their policies. So it's not solely the fault of capitalism that a company decides to go somewhere where they can be more profitable.

I never said it's completely wonderful, but the fact of the matter is every single person in this country has benefited TREMENDOUSLY from capitalism.

Well I completely disagree with that assessment. I just don't find the "human nature" explanation satisfactory; not only is it incredibly vague, but in this case specifically there are so many examples of societies both existing and historical that are completely classless and egalitarian. It's hard for me to accept the idea that massive income inequality is intrinsic to humans when not all human societies exhibit said inequality (e.g. the kibbutzim in Israel) and not all humans are selfish to the point where they would greatly diminish the well being of others for their own monetary gain. How would this be human nature if it's not exhibited in the nature of all humans? That would imply that these people who are not excessively "greedy" (for lack of a better word) somehow less human. -Sun_Tzu-

Do you agree that it is human nature to protect one's own life? If so, why do we have people who willingly kill themselves? Egalitarian societies are an aberration. Some people are generous; most aren't. Do you think their is a better explanation?

There are many ways we can improve the lives of others without being exploitative.RushKing

Oh really? How?

[QUOTE="RushKing"]There are many ways we can improve the lives of others without being exploitative.airshocker

Oh really? How?

voluntary socialismRushKing

Then you're exploiting those with money.

Next.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]voluntary socialismairshocker

Then you're exploiting those with money.

Next.

VoluntaryRushKing

I don't see how that word changes the fact that you are still USING(exploiting) those with money to fund this socialized system.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Voluntaryairshocker

I don't see how that word changes the fact that you are still USING(exploiting) those with money to fund this socialized system.

It's refunding people that got exploited.RushKing

You said there are ways to improve the lives of people without exploiting anything. Obviously that's incorrect, as I've just shown you.

Next example?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Well I completely disagree with that assessment. I just don't find the "human nature" explanation satisfactory; not only is it incredibly vague, but in this case specifically there are so many examples of societies both existing and historical that are completely classless and egalitarian. It's hard for me to accept the idea that massive income inequality is intrinsic to humans when not all human societies exhibit said inequality (e.g. the kibbutzim in Israel) and not all humans are selfish to the point where they would greatly diminish the well being of others for their own monetary gain. How would this be human nature if it's not exhibited in the nature of all humans? That would imply that these people who are not excessively "greedy" (for lack of a better word) somehow less human. Palantas

Do you agree that it is human nature to protect one's own life? If so, why do we have people who willingly kill themselves? Egalitarian societies are an aberration. Some people are generous; most aren't. Do you think their is a better explanation?

And when it comes to egalitarian societies, it wasn't always the case that the majority of societies were unequal and had these rigid hierarchies. Early on in human history, all societies were egalitarian. Then the neolithic revolution started to happen and a minority of people started to settle down and farm rather than hunt and gather, and that's when things really began to become unequal. And for no other reason than these farming communities ability to reproduce at a much faster rate than hunter-gatherer societies, the former eventually outnumbered the latter. And embedded in these unequal societies were dogmas that rationalized these inequalities along with governments that would use their sheer power to physically protect these hierarchies.

When it comes to this issue I find a cultural anthropological explanation to be much more persuasive than any biological one.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]It's refunding people that got exploited.airshocker

You said there are ways to improve the lives of people without exploiting anything. Obviously that's incorrect, as I've just shown you.

Next example?

Exploitation would no longer be notable if everyone got exploited equally.RushKing

That's not the point, nor do I think it's even correct. You said no one would be exploited, that's not true. You will always have people who don't contribute as much as others. The ones who contribute more will be used(exploited) more to benefit those who don't. There is no equality in that.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Exploitation would no longer be notable if everyone got exploited equally.airshocker

That's not the point, nor do I think it's even correct. You said no one would be exploited, that's not true. You will always have people who don't contribute as much as others. The ones who contribute more will be used(exploited) more to benefit those who don't. There is no equality in that.

Do I agree that it is human nature to protect one's own life? No, not really. I do think it is human nature to be self-interested, so much so that our self-interest governs our every action. But what those actual interests are exactly can vary dramatically from person to person. Now, it is in the vast majority of peoples self-interest to protect there own lives, but to some people the benefits of ending their lives outweighs living. From their point of view it is in their interest to kill themselves.

-Sun_Tzu-

I don't think I really see a difference between "It's natural to a person to protect his own life" and "A person is naturally self-interested." In the overwhelming majority of scenarios, the two produce the same effect. Ocassionally they do not, but that was my point: Such a thing is rare.

All early societies were egalitarian? How could an academic possible determine that?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Do I agree that it is human nature to protect one's own life? No, not really. I do think it is human nature to be self-interested, so much so that our self-interest governs our every action. But what those actual interests are exactly can vary dramatically from person to person. Now, it is in the vast majority of peoples self-interest to protect there own lives, but to some people the benefits of ending their lives outweighs living. From their point of view it is in their interest to kill themselves.

Palantas

I don't think I really see a difference between "It's natural to a person to protect his own life" and "A person is naturally self-interested." In the overwhelming majority of scenarios, the two produce the same effect. Ocassionally they do not, but that was my point: Such a thing is rare.

All early societies were egalitarian? How could an academic possible determine that?

This isn't the only bizarre conclusion that can be derived from your premise. Many so-called acts of altruism should be classified as inhumane acts as well. It becomes unnatural for a mother to sacrifice her own life to save her child. It becomes unnatural for a firefighter to risk his life going into a burning building in order to save whoever might be in there.

So while you may not agree, I see a pretty substantial difference between the two. Yes, what you say constitutes human nature does a good enough job of explaining some human behavior, it does a horrible job of explaining other human behavior, where as what I say constitutes human nature does an excellent job of explaining all types of human behavior. I smoke because it feels good - I enjoy the feeling of nicotine entering my blood stream. A mother sacrifices her own life to save her child because there is nothing thatshe wants more than for her child to continue on living, even if that means giving her own life in the process.

As for how academics are able to determine the structures of early human societies; we know the circumstances in which human society lived under during this time period. Evidence of wide-scale agriculturally based societies don't pop up on the historical record until about 10,000 years ago. We know for a fact that up until six to ten thousand years ago that the vast majority of humans lived as hunter-gatherers. So how do you figure out the structure of societies back then? We have plenty of observations as to how more recent hunter-gatherer societies were organized historically, and even today we are able to observe these societies. And they all have very similar characteristics, and one of those characteristics is that they are all very egalitarian. So from this we can infer that earlier hunter-gatherer societies were most likely the same way. Anthropologists are so certain about this claim that I don't think it's even disputed in the field. I've not come across any anthropologist who has argued that these societies were not egalitarian in nature.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Capitalism as we know it and crony capitalism go hand in hand. All the resources brought from Africa at the expense of aboriginal populatiopns that were enslaved and killed because of it has fulled capitalism in the whole world. Those people lived better before as hunter gatherers than now.airshocker

No they don't. That's like saying religion and government go hand in hand.

So how do you figure out the structure of societies back then? We have plenty of observations as to how more recent hunter-gatherer societies were organized historically, and even today we are able to observe these societies. And they all have very similar characteristics, and one of those characteristics is that they are all very egalitarian. So from this we can infer that earlier hunter-gatherer societies were most likely the same way. Anthropologists are so certain about this claim that I don't think it's even disputed in the field. I've not come across any anthropologist who has argued that these societies were not egalitarian in nature.-Sun_Tzu-

...I smoke...

-Sun_Tzu-

I'm not talking about behaviors that compound over years or decades like smoking or not jogging enough or taking a dangerous job. I was thinking more along the lines of instinctive behavior, reaction to a specific event. That may change the rest of this.

This isn't the only bizarre conclusion that can be derived from your premise. Many so-called acts of altruism should be classified as inhumane acts as well. It becomes unnatural for a mother to sacrifice her own life to save her child. It becomes unnatural for a firefighter to risk his life going into a burning building in order to save whoever might be in there.

-Sun_Tzu-

Those behaviors do seem unnatural to me. They require a decision-making process that runs contrary to nature. We'll set the mother-child one aside, as that has other natural implications. It is not natural for firefighters to charge into burning buildings or soldiers to expose themselves to fire. I think that's why these acts are admired (by some); they are difficult because they are unnatural.

As for how academics are able to determine the structures of early human societies...

-Sun_Tzu-

I spent 20 seconds looking this up on the Internet, and I saw words like "usually" and "typically," not "all." I don't think that changes your point, but it makes me much less skeptical.

Why is there no balance in the world?Second_Hokage

Are you 10 years old?

Those behaviors do seem unnatural to me. They require a decision-making process that runs contrary to nature.

Palantas

They run contrary to nature as you define it.

And if these behavariors seem unnatural to you and yet they are still observed in nature then your definition is probably off.

This is turning into a debate about semantics, but going back to my original point, that's my problem with your explanation for why there is so much income inequality in the first place. "Human nature" is a concept so vague that it basically turns into a meaningless slogan when closely examined. It's an explanation that doesn't really explain anything at all. That's why I prefer explanations like capitalism, which helps explain income inequality in today's world, or fedualism if we were talking about a few centuries ago, or even agriculture in general if we were going to go back a few thousand years ago. These are already reasonably well-defined terms, so there's no need for a preliminary debate over semantics (that could very well never be settled) before getting to the heart of the discussion.

They run contrary to nature as you define it.

And if these behavariors seem unnatural to you and yet they are still observed in nature then your definition is probably off.

-Sun_Tzu-

These observed behaviors are rare, therefore I'm comfortable making that generalization. It at least has some predictive capability.

That's why I prefer explanations like capitalism, which helps explain income inequality in today's world, or fedualism if we were talking about a few centuries ago, or even agriculture in general if we were going to go back a few thousand years ago.

-Sun_Tzu-

Yeah, "human nature" is pretty vague. However blaming this issue on capitalism doesn't follow to me. If conditions X, Y, and Z all product effect A, then it doesn't follow that Z is the root cause of A. There's obviously something else at work here. Based on what you've told me, it would seem to be the usual byproduct of civilization.

EDIT: Major typo.

What does religion and government has to do with what I said? History has thought us that capitalism is possible thanks to some cultures taking advantage of others. Africa is an example of that. You said everyone is better off thanks to capitalism, well many africans are way worse off thanks to it now. kuraimen

Religion and government are supposed to be separate. The same goes for capitalism and government. Crony capitalism and capitalism don't go hand in hand.

I actually said everyone in this country.

If you dont want Bieber to be rich, dont by his crappy records.

Cocaine.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]What does religion and government has to do with what I said? History has thought us that capitalism is possible thanks to some cultures taking advantage of others. Africa is an example of that. You said everyone is better off thanks to capitalism, well many africans are way worse off thanks to it now. airshocker

Religion and government are supposed to be separate. The same goes for capitalism and government. Crony capitalism and capitalism don't go hand in hand.

I actually said everyone in this country.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

Those behaviors do seem unnatural to me. They require a decision-making process that runs contrary to nature.

-Sun_Tzu-

They run contrary to nature as you define it.

And if these behavariors seem unnatural to you and yet they are still observed in nature then your definition is probably off.

This is turning into a debate about semantics, but going back to my original point, that's my problem with your explanation for why there is so much income inequality in the first place. "Human nature" is a concept so vague that it basically turns into a meaningless slogan when closely examined. It's an explanation that doesn't really explain anything at all. That's why I prefer explanations like capitalism, which helps explain income inequality in today's world, or fedualism if we were talking about a few centuries ago, or even agriculture in general if we were going to go back a few thousand years ago. These are already reasonably well-defined terms, so there's no need for a preliminary debate over semantics (that could very well never be settled) before getting to the heart of the discussion.

What would you attribute inequality to in centrally planned economies?

Because some people are just really, really smart and happen to be in the right place at the right time with the right set of skills. Being smart also means knowing your niche and spotting the opportunity, which is probably the hardest part.lo_Pine

I pretty much agree with this.

Yeah, "human nature" is pretty vague. However blaming this issue on semantics doesn't follow to me. If conditions X, Y, and Z all product effect A, then it doesn't follow that Z is the root cause of A. There's obviously something else at work here. Based on what you've told me, it would seem to be the usual byproduct of civilization.

Palantas

It would follow that Z is the root cause of A if it is the case that Z actually caused A. Does it really matter that X could've caused A, or that it caused A in the past? I don't see how it would matter when talking about the present. But I do think that in this case there is something else at work here and that there is an overarching theme behind this story of income inequality throughout human history, and that is private property. Wherever private property exists, said inequality exists. That's a much better explanation than "human nature," which is really just an empty slogan more than anything else. The way I see it, you're really just using human nature as a god of the gaps.

And it's only the usual byproduct of civilization because the vast majority of people are born into these cultures that feature private property, because of the reproduction levels that these cultures are able to support (and reinforced by governments and religious/secular dogma). It's a lot easier to churn out kids when you're settled in one place compared to when you are constantly on the move. There's nothing really innate about it, it's just a different way of life that humans live.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

Those behaviors do seem unnatural to me. They require a decision-making process that runs contrary to nature.

jetpower3

They run contrary to nature as you define it.

And if these behavariors seem unnatural to you and yet they are still observed in nature then your definition is probably off.

This is turning into a debate about semantics, but going back to my original point, that's my problem with your explanation for why there is so much income inequality in the first place. "Human nature" is a concept so vague that it basically turns into a meaningless slogan when closely examined. It's an explanation that doesn't really explain anything at all. That's why I prefer explanations like capitalism, which helps explain income inequality in today's world, or fedualism if we were talking about a few centuries ago, or even agriculture in general if we were going to go back a few thousand years ago. These are already reasonably well-defined terms, so there's no need for a preliminary debate over semantics (that could very well never be settled) before getting to the heart of the discussion.

What would you attribute inequality to in centrally planned economies?

Have there been any large civilizations that didnot feature private property?

because consolidation of wealth

Have there been any large civilizations that didnot feature private property?

Palantas

The ones that tried no longer exist.

I think China still has no "private" land. But the land isn't just distributed amoung the people, you have to rent it or something. It's not pure communism and it's not pure capitalism.

Have there been any large civilizations that didnot feature private property?

Palantas

Have there been any large civilizations that didnot feature private property?

Palantas

Why is there no balance in the world?Second_Hokage