- 24 Aug 2016 07:38
#14712468
It isn't very relevant. Why does it even matter? Why do we all have to be in the same class? I don't get the importance of this to you. I do think I get why you single out commerce for criticism but wilfully ignore the far more rigid class systems of academics, military types and it may also be said priests but I think I will save that for another time.
Well alright you acknowledge the market has no class system, that is progress of a sort, but then say society does.. Well you can argue that, class systems are intellectual constructs for describing things sometimes imaginary things and descriptions are really malleable so yeah you can take an imaginary thing cut up its imaginary elements and place them in little separate boxes in your mind and say see there is a class system. You can do that. I can do that too. I can divide up society into famous people and unfamous people, or happy people and sad people, music lovers and the tone deaf, ugly people and pretty people, fit people and slobs, bright people and stupid people, sane people and socialists, people I like and people i don't like... on and on.. we can play these games.. so what? Oh dear I created in my mind a class of ugly people and a class of beautiful people and that is just so unfair!!! We need to take action, and give all the ugly people cosmetic surgery and mangle the faces of the pretty people until everyone is the same. But really why bother?
You can classify the shop keeper in one class and the store assistant he pays to help him in another.. you can do that.. but would they do that? I don't think they do or even if they do they don't see anything wrong in the arrangement or that it is somehow set in stone or the consequence of some dark conspiracy. Why don't we inject a little reality into our abstract classifying?
Mr Patel arrived in the UK some twenty years ago as a fresh faced young man with a wad of cash that his whole extended family back in Pakistan saved up and entrusted to him to start a business in the UK. Twenty years on he owns and runs a convenience store and he is doing all right. He has married and had children and they helped him out with his shop but now his wife is not so interested and wants to take things easy at home and his children are almost grown up and leaving the nest to pursue their own enterprises and whatever else. He decides to hire someone to help out. In the end a young lad from the neighbourhood gets the job. The young lad is a native English as it happens, he doesn't really know what he wants to do but he does know that he wants paying work.
How do we classify them? Foreigner and native? Young and mature? Capitalist and worker? Brown and white? Jazz fan and bangra fan? Family man and single? Focused and unfocused? Does it matter? Does it matter to them? If it doesn't matter to them why does it matter to you? Why should they conform to your dictates? Are you pointing a gun at them or just pointlessly blathering on the internetz?
That depends on the market rate for manual labour, though generally that isn't as much compared with more skilled work, okay probably not enough for med school. Does the child even want to go to med school? Does he have the ability to make that expense worth it? Assuming he had both the ability and the desire then that might be something to fret over. What should he do? He could try for a loan, he could try for a gift like a scholarship or bursary, he could just pick an easier career path that didn't require such enormously time consuming and expensive training, something like commerce.. I don't know why but seriously my heart is not bleeding for this. Remind me again why I should care?
If these unnamed and uncited people that "study social mobility" are anything like you then I wouldn't trust them an inch with anything. All things wax and wane, and inheritances tend be split between siblings, then split with their spouses then split again with their children. Even if those estates are smartly managed from one generation to the next still they dissipate. The Rothschilde famously tried very hard to contain this natural tendency to dissipation to the point where they had a family rule that a Rothschilde could only marry their own first cousins.. lol, it didn't work, well the Rothschilde are still a fabulously wealthy family but their fortunes now are allegedly a tiny fraction of what it was in their golden age back in the 19th century. What will it be in another hundred years? Or a thousand? Or a million years? Random thought! The Rothschilde are jewish, would you expropriate them if you could? Isn't expropriating jews anti-semitism?! OMG you are a nazi!
I do! I fully support Augusto Pinochet's freedom and choice to shoot socialists. I can only hope I have the freedom to make this choice too someday.
No I want to choose my destiny and I wish that for all those that I care about too but I would get more of that under a "authoritarian military dictatorship" like Pinochet's regime than I would under Allende's moronic mob of dupes and monkeys.
Yes but even the poor of a "capitalist" country are objectively richer than the "rich" of a socialist country.. So what is your excuse for that? But you said "capitalist" governments make people poor, but did not a thing to justify that or explain how they allegedly do that. Seriously fuck off. The existence of "poor" people hardly proves the government is up to some kind of dastardly conspiracy to make them poor. Why do you tell this lie? They do make people poorer through tax but they also use those resources to do stuff for people. If they did that inefficiently then that might make people poorer but that hardly suggests the intention to make people poor. Also in your eyes it is apparent that rich = evil and poor = good, so if it were the case that government was making people poor you should love them for turning "evil" people into "good" people .
Oh I do read your posts they are hilariously dishonest, stupid and hypocritical. You do talk exactly like some silly college kid, what else shall I read in you?
The solution to 1984 is 1973!
SolarCross wrote:"Class" maybe, for those with a fetish for categorising, pretty much anything can be split up into classes so indeed why not earning ability? However "system" implies some design which I don't see as being relevant to commerce. Academia yes, that is a class system, the military yes that is a class system, because both are class systems by design. Commerce however is too big, too variable, too massively multi-polar, too anarchistic to be a class system by design... the world of commerce has more in common with an eco-"system" than the stuffy and rigid artificial constructs of academia or the military. Ironically enough if you were to get all of human economic activity booted under one global totalitarian communist thing then the world of commerce would then acquire an actual class system where before it had not, is that not so?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Class is relevant to capitalism even though you may not see its relevance.
While the market is an organic system that is too complex to be considered a class system, society is not the market or commerce. And society is not so complex as to have no class system. People who own businesses that employ a lot of other people are almost certainly not going to be the same class as the people who are employed by this individual.
It isn't very relevant. Why does it even matter? Why do we all have to be in the same class? I don't get the importance of this to you. I do think I get why you single out commerce for criticism but wilfully ignore the far more rigid class systems of academics, military types and it may also be said priests but I think I will save that for another time.
Well alright you acknowledge the market has no class system, that is progress of a sort, but then say society does.. Well you can argue that, class systems are intellectual constructs for describing things sometimes imaginary things and descriptions are really malleable so yeah you can take an imaginary thing cut up its imaginary elements and place them in little separate boxes in your mind and say see there is a class system. You can do that. I can do that too. I can divide up society into famous people and unfamous people, or happy people and sad people, music lovers and the tone deaf, ugly people and pretty people, fit people and slobs, bright people and stupid people, sane people and socialists, people I like and people i don't like... on and on.. we can play these games.. so what? Oh dear I created in my mind a class of ugly people and a class of beautiful people and that is just so unfair!!! We need to take action, and give all the ugly people cosmetic surgery and mangle the faces of the pretty people until everyone is the same. But really why bother?
You can classify the shop keeper in one class and the store assistant he pays to help him in another.. you can do that.. but would they do that? I don't think they do or even if they do they don't see anything wrong in the arrangement or that it is somehow set in stone or the consequence of some dark conspiracy. Why don't we inject a little reality into our abstract classifying?
Mr Patel arrived in the UK some twenty years ago as a fresh faced young man with a wad of cash that his whole extended family back in Pakistan saved up and entrusted to him to start a business in the UK. Twenty years on he owns and runs a convenience store and he is doing all right. He has married and had children and they helped him out with his shop but now his wife is not so interested and wants to take things easy at home and his children are almost grown up and leaving the nest to pursue their own enterprises and whatever else. He decides to hire someone to help out. In the end a young lad from the neighbourhood gets the job. The young lad is a native English as it happens, he doesn't really know what he wants to do but he does know that he wants paying work.
How do we classify them? Foreigner and native? Young and mature? Capitalist and worker? Brown and white? Jazz fan and bangra fan? Family man and single? Focused and unfocused? Does it matter? Does it matter to them? If it doesn't matter to them why does it matter to you? Why should they conform to your dictates? Are you pointing a gun at them or just pointlessly blathering on the internetz?
Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to have ignored my point that the opportuniy to become a neurosurgeom requires someone willing to pay for medical school. A manual labourer will almost certainly not be able to pay for his child to become one.
Thus, to get these opportunities for well paying jobs, it almost certainly requires well to do parents.
That depends on the market rate for manual labour, though generally that isn't as much compared with more skilled work, okay probably not enough for med school. Does the child even want to go to med school? Does he have the ability to make that expense worth it? Assuming he had both the ability and the desire then that might be something to fret over. What should he do? He could try for a loan, he could try for a gift like a scholarship or bursary, he could just pick an easier career path that didn't require such enormously time consuming and expensive training, something like commerce.. I don't know why but seriously my heart is not bleeding for this. Remind me again why I should care?
SolarCross wrote:You brought up inheritance with an implication that there is something wrong with it. You did that.. So yeah that is your feelings motivating you to do that.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I brought up inheritance as a way for the upper classes to maintain their economic leverage. You brought up my supposed feelings. I would rather you stopped incorrectly guessing my feelings and addressed my point.Is that why you believe parents make gifts to their children? To maintain their economic leverage whatever that is? Has it not ever occurred to you that parents are biologically and quite properly pre-disposed to helping their children? You know out of love for them? So we must abolish love? Meh I'll pass thanks, I'd much rather Bill Gates' ungrateful brats have their easy money than live in your nasty little world where parents have to hate their children and dump them on a bunch of crapped out crazy socialist bureaucrats to mentally mutilate. Your feelings are on topic, because it is only because of your feelings that this very good, natural and necessary tendency for parents to help their children is being painted by you as something dark and conspiratorial. I am just as aware that people help their children (in general there are always exceptions, I guess to avoid hypocrisy you don't help yours) but it doesn't annoy me, I am glad that people do that, I do that for my son and fuck you for saying I shouldn't!
SolarCross wrote:No it is just something people do, have always done and always will do and really they should do. You will have more luck curing people of a liking for alcohol as you will of stopping people helping their children, it is practically biological.
Bill Gates' children may well be born millionaires or even billionaires but in all probability they will finish their life poorer than they started it. Same goes for the children of other top earners like the author J. K. Rowling. Her grandchildren will probably also be poorer than their parents. The estate left behind by super earners like Bill Gates or J. K. Rowling may be so epically huge that it takes many generations of bungling and fecklessness to completely fritter away but it will happen all the same, entropy spares none.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Probably not. This goes against the findings of people who study social mobility. Gates' kids may not be intelligent money makers, but they do not need to be. They can hire someone to do that for them.
But as long as we agree that inheritance is one of the ways that class systems perpetuate themselves, the rest is a tangent,.
If these unnamed and uncited people that "study social mobility" are anything like you then I wouldn't trust them an inch with anything. All things wax and wane, and inheritances tend be split between siblings, then split with their spouses then split again with their children. Even if those estates are smartly managed from one generation to the next still they dissipate. The Rothschilde famously tried very hard to contain this natural tendency to dissipation to the point where they had a family rule that a Rothschilde could only marry their own first cousins.. lol, it didn't work, well the Rothschilde are still a fabulously wealthy family but their fortunes now are allegedly a tiny fraction of what it was in their golden age back in the 19th century. What will it be in another hundred years? Or a thousand? Or a million years? Random thought! The Rothschilde are jewish, would you expropriate them if you could? Isn't expropriating jews anti-semitism?! OMG you are a nazi!
SolarCross wrote:Yes Pinochet was good. The only fault I can find in him is that he didn't kill enough socialists.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So when you talk about freedom and choice, you do not actually mean it. Good to know.
I do! I fully support Augusto Pinochet's freedom and choice to shoot socialists. I can only hope I have the freedom to make this choice too someday.
SolarCross wrote:No, I support people making their own choices and living with the consequences.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you do not. If you did not, you would not support authoritarian military dictatorships imposed by foreign gov'ts against the will of the people. You seem to be using this word "choice" as a slogan, rather than as part of a logically consistent or moral position.
No I want to choose my destiny and I wish that for all those that I care about too but I would get more of that under a "authoritarian military dictatorship" like Pinochet's regime than I would under Allende's moronic mob of dupes and monkeys.
SolarCross wrote: My government probably does make some people poor, anyone caught and convicted by them for committing a crime, such as theft, rape, murder or trading in narcotics will very likely go to prison and take a massive hit to their earning ability and future prospects... that happens... is it something that shouldn't happen? I don't know, honestly. What do you think?
Pants-of-dog wrote:In every capitalist country, there are poor who have not committed crimes.
Yes but even the poor of a "capitalist" country are objectively richer than the "rich" of a socialist country.. So what is your excuse for that? But you said "capitalist" governments make people poor, but did not a thing to justify that or explain how they allegedly do that. Seriously fuck off. The existence of "poor" people hardly proves the government is up to some kind of dastardly conspiracy to make them poor. Why do you tell this lie? They do make people poorer through tax but they also use those resources to do stuff for people. If they did that inefficiently then that might make people poorer but that hardly suggests the intention to make people poor. Also in your eyes it is apparent that rich = evil and poor = good, so if it were the case that government was making people poor you should love them for turning "evil" people into "good" people .
Well maybe you should straighten me out on that?
Pants-of-dog wrote:I suggest you read my posts and answer my actual points instead of assuming I am a college kid who worships Marx and has never read him.
Oh I do read your posts they are hilariously dishonest, stupid and hypocritical. You do talk exactly like some silly college kid, what else shall I read in you?
The solution to 1984 is 1973!