Joe Biden Love Thread

[jwb]

I'm not saying that at all. I don't believe just anyone can do it. First of all not everyone is equally capable. So it's not at all surprising that the most extreme forms of success are rare and hard to come by. Second, obviously there's plenty of luck and circumstances that go into it. And obviously coming from money is a huge leg up but not a requirement. That doesn't mean everyone can do it. That just means that some people will manage to amass giant fortunes despite not having come from the most wealthy family.

My point was really that the actual crucial difference is in fact in the performance of their business, not their background. I know that your ideology requires that you paint it as if social mobility doesn't happen and it's simply a matter of wealth begets more wealth but the fact is, however rich you think Zuckerbergs parents were, they were pretty much working class in comparison to what he became. You could easily have such an upbringing and just become a run of the mill small to moderately sized business owner. And most business owners set up shop with dreams of making as much money as they can, is mostly what I was saying. It's not an actual moral high ground, at best it's the moral luck of just not being as successful thus not as culpable in the evil capitalist blah blah blah

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by jwb

I'm not saying that at all. I don't believe just anyone can do it. First of all not everyone is equally capable. So it's not at all surprising that the most extreme forms of success are rare and hard to come by. Second, obviously there's plenty of luck and circumstances that go into it. And obviously coming from money is a huge leg up but not a requirement. That doesn't mean everyone can do it. That just means that some people will manage to amass giant fortunes despite not having come from the most wealthy family.

My point was really that the actual crucial difference is in fact in the performance of their business, not their background. I know that your ideology requires that you paint it as if social mobility doesn't happen and it's simply a matter of wealth begets more wealth but the fact is, however rich you think Zuckerbergs parents were, they were pretty much working class in comparison to what he became. You could easily have such an upbringing and just become a run of the mill small to moderately sized business owner. And most business owners set up shop with dreams of making as much money as they can, is mostly what I was saying. It's not an actual moral high ground, at best it's the moral luck of just not being as successful thus not as culpable in the evil capitalist blah blah blah

Alright I realize that you're not saying that coming from money is a non-issue to accumulating vast amounts of wealth but what I'm saying is not that being from the 0.01% of the upper crust guarantees a chokehold on wealth creation but that having pre-existing wealth allows a level of capital seed money that a cobbler or general store owner can't make use of to capitalize on whatever frontier of wealth generation that requires large amounts of capital, be it investing in diamond mines in Africa or financing the creation of a vast delivery system for getting people books or di1does across the country within two days. Like, your dad might be able buy a restaurant but he will never be able to build a diamond mine.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Alright I realize that you're not saying that coming from money is a non-issue to accumulating vast amounts of wealth but what I'm saying is not that being from the 0.01% of the upper crust guarantees a chokehold on wealth creation but that having pre-existing wealth allows a level of capital seed money that a cobbler or general store owner can't make use of to capitalize on whatever frontier of wealth generation that requires large amounts of capital, be it investing in diamond mines in Africa or financing the creation of a vast delivery system for getting people books or di1does across the country within two days. Like, your dad might be able buy a restaurant but he will never be able to build a diamond mine.

so if I understand your point about seed money there are in fact other avenues to get it potentially if you have a business model that you expect to make a lot of money. A lot of these start ups rely on various types of investors.

Honestly the kind of money that someone like Zuckerberg or Bill gates goes on to amass is so absurd that it's virtually guaranteed for any given person that's probably not going to happen for you. Like you mentioned Zuckerberg went to Harvard as did Gates. As prestigious as that does sound, the median income for a Harvard undergrad is only like 80k. The trajectory that guys like Zuckerberg were on at that age was far from typical even among the most privileged trust fund group of people.

Didn't the owner of Walmart start as a single general store? There's your dad's restatement example right there. It could be the start of a retail empire or it could be just a quaint local fixture. Obviously the latter is vastly more likely. Which gets back to my original statement that the actual difference between the two is in fact just their level of success.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by jwb

so if I understand your point about seed money there are in fact other avenues to get it potentially if you have a business model that you expect to make a lot of money. A lot of these start ups rely on various types of investors.

Honestly the kind of money that someone like Zuckerberg or Bill gates goes on to amass is so absurd that it's virtually guaranteed for any given person that's probably not going to happen for you. Like you mentioned Zuckerberg went to Harvard as did Gates. As prestigious as that does sound, the median income for a Harvard undergrad is only like 80k. The trajectory that guys like Zuckerberg were on at that age was far from typical even among the most privileged trust fund group of people.

Didn't the owner of Walmart start as a single general store? There's your dad's restatement example right there. It could be the start of a retail empire or it could be just a quaint local fixture. Obviously the latter is vastly more likely. Which gets back to my original statement that the actual difference between the two is in fact just their level of success.

Alright let's just break this down whether you're a member of the English monied people in the 1700s or 1800s vs. whether you're an American monied person in the same timeline to give an idea of the opportunity open to people and how a frontier can make a serious difference in the amount of capital necessary to build generational wealth.

Say you're a person of wealth with seed money but not top crust and looking to build your fortune in England at this time. By this time England's economy is already well built up and if you want to build an empire of selling wheat or potatoes then you're going to be competing with hundreds or even thousands of years of entrenched business practices without much space to grow cause people have been cornering the England market for a long time. like there just isn't

So the most obvious solution is to take your seed money to the frontiers of the empire, Africa or Asia or wherever where markets aren't as established and where seed money can make a bigger impact and the possibilities are more endless. But these frontiers are far far away and require great amounts of startup capital to account for the distance.

Now say you're an American with the same seed money. The frontier is on your doorstep, the government is big on quick expansion and offering pennies on the dollar on acres of land because they're trying to settle a frontier that is seemingly endless and right ****ing there. For far cheaper value than an English venture capitalist you can obtain vast tracts of land/capital to build wealth because the frontier is relatively close and able to repopulate and therefore more valuable.

You have two groups of people with potentially equal amounts of wealth and drive, but the latter simply has more opportunity to accumulate wealth.

Flash forward to now and comparing different income brackets in America and their access to the current economic frontier (whether it be finance or the internet or whatever). Seemingly different circumstances since we're not comparing at least potentially equal wealth within different societies but the similarity is comparing different access to frontiers of wealth.

If you are someone with wealth to finance the creation of Amazon or whatever the **** does it god damn matter if an enemy can open a general store?

[jwb]

God damn bro its 3 am and you done wrote a book. Why the **** you keep saying seed money? You must have heard that on a recent podcast

... but yeah I'll probably have to respond to this tome tomorrow brody.

[The Batlord]

I get off at 9pm now, bitch. Enjoy the late stage anti-capitalism, emphasis on late.

[Trollheart]

Batty I thought your post was one of the coolest things I've read in quite a while. I don't know enough of this topic - or anything really of it - to say whether you're right or wrong, but damn bro that was some gnarly writing, as the kids possibly say. Or as they would say in the gentlemen's clubs of the nineteenth century, with no irony at all, capital my dear boy, capital. Hold the Das.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Alright let's just break this down whether you're a member of the English monied people in the 1700s or 1800s vs. whether you're an American monied person in the same timeline to give an idea of the opportunity open to people and how a frontier can make a serious difference in the amount of capital necessary to build generational wealth.

Say you're a person of wealth with seed money but not top crust and looking to build your fortune in England at this time. By this time England's economy is already well built up and if you want to build an empire of selling wheat or potatoes then you're going to be competing with hundreds or even thousands of years of entrenched business practices without much space to grow cause people have been cornering the England market for a long time. like there just isn't

So the most obvious solution is to take your seed money to the frontiers of the empire, Africa or Asia or wherever where markets aren't as established and where seed money can make a bigger impact and the possibilities are more endless. But these frontiers are far far away and require great amounts of startup capital to account for the distance.

Now say you're an American with the same seed money. The frontier is on your doorstep, the government is big on quick expansion and offering pennies on the dollar on acres of land because they're trying to settle a frontier that is seemingly endless and right ****ing there. For far cheaper value than an English venture capitalist you can obtain vast tracts of land/capital to build wealth because the frontier is relatively close and able to repopulate and therefore more valuable.

You have two groups of people with potentially equal amounts of wealth and drive, but the latter simply has more opportunity to accumulate wealth.

Flash forward to now and comparing different income brackets in America and their access to the current economic frontier (whether it be finance or the internet or whatever). Seemingly different circumstances since we're not comparing at least potentially equal wealth within different societies but the similarity is comparing different access to frontiers of wealth.

If you are someone with wealth to finance the creation of Amazon or whatever the **** does it god damn matter if an enemy can open a general store?

I mean this seems like a rather drawn out analogy that is just meant to simply demonstrate that circumstances can easily make you more likely to succeed. You are seemingly referring to generational wealth as the overriding circumstance here but I would argue the same sort of right place right time type circumstances apply just as much. Just like the American settlers you can find yourself in an undertapped frontier that allows more room for success just by cornering markets that were previously being ignored, like Jobs/Gates did with the personal computer. I just think that all these factors can potentially go into explaining the success of a capitalist, but like I said the real distinction between a big wig and a mom and pop owner is the success. Theoretically, a small business that is successful enough can become a large business. Why would the guy who could start Amazon care about the guy with the general store? Because the specific general store I was talking about turned into ****in Walmart. That's why.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by elphenor

idk according to you, being a Dentist makes you bourgeois because you might employ an assistant

You are misunderstanding me as well. My entire point was that the worker/ owner distinction doesn't necessarily describe income based class distinctions accurately. A business owner/capitalist isn't necessarily part of the upper class, was my entire point. It's you who keeps mistakenly conflating the two and thinking that if the business is small enough it ceases to be a real business and the owner magically becomes a worker.

The dentist owning their own small practice would in fact make them a business owner. But it wouldn't make them wealthy or part of the true elite.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by elphenor

Marx from the Manifesto

I read this to mean the middle class kids itself, but belongs to the proletariat including...shopkeepers

however you could read this to mean a few things

vague enough and out of context enough that it feels like a Christian quoting scripture lol

Like I said I could see you making the argument that maybe if they don't have employees they are in some third category but other than that, the worker/owner distinction quite simply refers to the internal power dynamic within the business, not how large the business is or how wealthy their owner is. Regardless of how small a business is, the person who owns it is the owner and the people they pay to work there are the employees.