Herman Cain: It's Your Fault if You're Unemployed

[Seth]

OK, I don't side with MattShizzle, but that's your argument? Seriously?

It's not even wrong.

You obviously don't know the proper usage of "it's not even wrong."

I didn't make an argument. You'll want to look up what an "argument" is.

I gave a list of examples of people who moved up the socioeconomic ladder. It was very easy, and believe me, I can keep going. These are just prominent ones. There are many others, like my father, who aren't noteworthy, but also made significant jumps. if MattShizzle is right and that people are effectively serfs, why do we see economic advancement to far greater degrees in capitalism-based economies than in communism-based economies?

What is it that you find troubling about a list of concrete, real life, examples of socioeconomic advancement?

Is there more socioeconomic advancement under Communism? Where is the proof of that?

While it is true that there are real opportunities for advancing yourself in terms of wealth and power, it is still almost certainly true that statistically speaking, it is harder for a person whose parents are poor to end up in a high socio-economic postion than someone with wealthy parents, given equal intellectual capacity. It is attacking a straw man to suggest that socialists or liberals claim that people are "locked into serfdom". We know thay are not, but we also know that being born to wealthy parents is an enormous benefit.

So what? What makes you think that life it fair? Capitalism provides an equal opportunity to strive for economic success, it does not guarantee success, nor does it guarantee equality of social or economic outcomes, which is what Socialists think is "unfair" about capitalism. Socialists believe that a "just" society is one in which everyone enjoys equality of OUTCOMES (which is to say everyone has an equal "opportunity" to succeed by "leveling the playing field" by providing the underprivileged with privilege, and taking privilege from the privileged in order to achieve some sort of egalitarian equality.

Socialism does this by regulating how everyone may and may not obtain wealth and move up the economic and social ladder using the heavy hand of government to ensure that everyone gets exactly the same as everyone else, because that's thought to be "fair" to everyone (it's not, but that's not something socialists are capable of understanding it seems).

Capitalism provides an equal opportunity to strive to succeed by removing government and social barriers that impede the ability of people to exploit their skills and innovation, thus providing everyone with a free market in which they can succeed, or fail, on their own initiative, without central planning or central direction by government.

But capitalism does not purport or suggest that people will, can, or even should enjoy equality of OUTCOMES, because to achieve that, government must interfere with the right of the productive, innovative class to profit from and enjoy the fruits of their labor in order to redistribute their wealth to the indolent dependent class to achieve socialist egalitarian "fairness."

Again, life is not fair. You rise or fall on your own initiative, and failure is most of what stimulates people to work harder and be more innovative in order to profit from and enjoy the fruits of such productive work. Without failure, there is not impetus to do better and succeed.

That's why programs designed to assist people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to do further studies are so vital.

There is something to be said for educating the lower classes so as to give them better tools to economically advance themselves. However, how much education is required, and upon whom to bestow such public effort, is not amenable to pat, generalized answers.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Again, life is not fair. You rise or fall on your own initiative

And again, you miss my point. Given equal amounts of initiative, statistically speaking, children of wealthy parents will have a greater chance of ending up in their parent's socio-economic bracket than children of poor parents (and I accept a reasonable number of exceptions to that). This has the effect of producing a self-perpetuating class of the rich and powerful (with a certain amount of mixing). Resentment builds...

Later in your post you gave some grudging support to my plea for more educational assistance for disadvantaged students, albeit delivered in a rather patronising tone...

There is something to be said for educating the lower classes so as to give them better tools to economically advance themselves. However, how much education is required, and upon whom to bestow such public effort, is not amenable to pat, generalized answers.

[Warren Dew]

And again, you miss my point. Given equal amounts of initiative, statistically speaking, children of wealthy parents will have a greater chance of ending up in their parent's socio-economic bracket than children of poor parents (and I accept a reasonable number of exceptions to that). This has the effect of producing a self-perpetuating class of the rich and powerful (with a certain amount of mixing).

Or it would, given equal amounts of initiative. In the U.S., that's not the case; while there are exceptions, the children with the most initiative tend to be from the middle class, perhaps because those are the children that don't have everything done for them.

[JimC]

And again, you miss my point. Given equal amounts of initiative, statistically speaking, children of wealthy parents will have a greater chance of ending up in their parent's socio-economic bracket than children of poor parents (and I accept a reasonable number of exceptions to that). This has the effect of producing a self-perpetuating class of the rich and powerful (with a certain amount of mixing).

Or it would, given equal amounts of initiative. In the U.S., that's not the case; while there are exceptions, the children with the most initiative tend to be from the middle class, perhaps because those are the children that don't have everything done for them.

There will be many factors affecting the motivation and initiative of students; quite complex factors, I suspect, and certainly worthy of study.

However, that does not obviate my point that, all other things being equal, on average, the children of the wealthy have on average a relatively easy run through the educational hoops required to be lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers, scientists...

[Coito ergo sum]

Pretty much every country that exists it Capitalist. There has never been a country where the government owned the means of production and the workers shared the profits.

That's not correct. Most countries have highly controlled economies, where the means of production is controlled by the State.

Also, Communism does not involve workers "sharing in profits." Communism doesn't promise workers profits. It promises workers that they will get according to their "need."

But having individuals or collections thereof allowed to own means of production just by having money is indeed capitalism so what I said is true.

What you said was that most countries were capitalist. That isn't true.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's because end-state Communism is an impossible utopian delusion

That's because end-state Communism is an impossible utopian dystopian delusion

It would only be "utopian" if it would be a good thing if it actually became reality.

Actually, utopia is closer to Seth's intended meaning. It comes from the Latin word 'topia', meaning place. By adding the 'u', the meaning becomes the opposite: No such place. Dystopia, on the other hand, means "imaginary bad place". I would think that the bad places like the USSR were very real. [/pedantry][/quote]

Etymology and meaning are not the same thing.

Utopian: (adjective) founded upon idealized perfection.

Dystopian: (adjective) a society founded upon human misery.

The etymology of "utopia" as you say is from the Greek. It was coined by Thomas More from the Greek roots - "u" and "topia" - meaning "not" and "place." His usage of the word he coined was as an imaginary island enjoying "perfect" legal, social, and political systems. It is used to connote idealized perfection.

We've been told that true communism hasn't existed. I'll accept that to the same extent that "true" capitalism has never existed. To the extent that some are advocating the "true" communism that is described conceptually in communist thought, but never realized, that description sounds, to me, dystopian - calling for a society founded upon human misery. Communism does not offer a better life for people in our society. Maybe it did in the 1850's, during Marx's generation, when poverty was "really" poverty and the systems in Europe were across the board despotic and oppressive, primarily monarchies and aristocracies (even then, I don't think anyone established that the lot of the common "worker" would be improved if Communism took over). But, certainly not today.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pretty much every country that exists it Capitalist. There has never been a country where the government owned the means of production and the workers shared the profits.

That's not correct. Most countries have highly controlled economies, where the means of production is controlled by the State.

Also, Communism does not involve workers "sharing in profits." Communism doesn't promise workers profits. It promises workers that they will get according to their "need."

It does indeed say the workers will get their share of the profits.

No, it does not, because under idealized Communism there ARE NO "profits" at all. In this utopian ideal no one profits from labor, all share equally, according to their need, and all contribute equally, according to their ability. There is no commerce because no one owns anything and therefore cannot profit from the transfer of those goods.

Point of clarification - need and ability do not imply equality. Quite the opposite. It implies that the strong and the smart and those with higher stamina will contribute more because their ability is higher, and those that are needier will get more because their needs are greater. That Communism promises equality is a myth, and the idea of equality is rejected in the very foundational principles of Communism. For some reason, though, people seem to have convinced themselves that to each according to his need means "equality" and to each according to ability means "equality." How could it?

[Coito ergo sum]

And again, you miss my point. Given equal amounts of initiative, statistically speaking, children of wealthy parents will have a greater chance of ending up in their parent's socio-economic bracket than children of poor parents (and I accept a reasonable number of exceptions to that). This has the effect of producing a self-perpetuating class of the rich and powerful (with a certain amount of mixing).

Or it would, given equal amounts of initiative. In the U.S., that's not the case; while there are exceptions, the children with the most initiative tend to be from the middle class, perhaps because those are the children that don't have everything done for them.

There will be many factors affecting the motivation and initiative of students; quite complex factors, I suspect, and certainly worthy of study.

However, that does not obviate my point that, all other things being equal, on average, the children of the wealthy have on average a relatively easy run through the educational hoops required to be lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers, scientists...

I'm not sure you're correct about this.

In order to evaluate your claim, we would need to settle on a definition of "the rich." Are we talking about 1% of the population? 25%? 30%?

[PsychoSerenity]

There will be many factors affecting the motivation and initiative of students; quite complex factors, I suspect, and certainly worthy of study.

However, that does not obviate my point that, all other things being equal, on average, the children of the wealthy have on average a relatively easy run through the educational hoops required to be lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers, scientists...

I'm not sure you're correct about this.

In order to evaluate your claim, we would need to settle on a definition of "the rich." Are we talking about 1% of the population? 25%? 30%?

Need to settle on a definition? Bollocks. From every study and report I've seen, it's a sliding scale. No mater the wealth brackets compared, the wealthier have an easier time of becoming even wealthier. Which, given how capitalism works, is hardly surprising.

[Coito ergo sum]

There will be many factors affecting the motivation and initiative of students; quite complex factors, I suspect, and certainly worthy of study.

However, that does not obviate my point that, all other things being equal, on average, the children of the wealthy have on average a relatively easy run through the educational hoops required to be lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers, scientists...

I'm not sure you're correct about this.

In order to evaluate your claim, we would need to settle on a definition of "the rich." Are we talking about 1% of the population? 25%? 30%?

Need to settle on a definition? Bollocks. From every study and report I've seen, it's a sliding scale. No mater the wealth brackets compared, the wealthier have an easier time of becoming even wealthier. Which, given how capitalism works, is hardly surprising.

Moreover, what is the alternative? Certainly not communism. Even if we assume that what you say is true - and it might be - I really haven't seen the stats you're talking about - but, even if we just assume you are correct, what we're left with is: (a) communism -- no chance at upward mobility at all, because the concept is meaningless - everyone gets according to their need and gives according to their ability, and that's that. and (b) capitalism, you have some chance at upward mobility, but not much.

If the choice is between capitalism and communism, then I'll take the former because at least there is a chance.

That, of course, is not the only choice in the world, and what many successful countries have chosen, like Europe and the US, is a mixed and regulated economy, which at least tries to maintain a capitalist basis, while providing protections against certain eventualities that may arise, and also protects personal liberties as well as the interests of the society as a whole.

[MattShizzle]

So what? What makes you think that life it fair?

The reason life isn't fair is because of assholes who make sure it stays that way by saying "life just isn't fair" rather than doing something/demanding something be done about it.

[Coito ergo sum]

So what? What makes you think that life it fair?

The reason life isn't fair is because of assholes who make sure it stays that way by saying "life just isn't fair" rather than doing something/demanding something be done about it.

So, to make it fair, one of the things you would advocate doing is to make it illegal for a person to do the following:

(1) Buy a bunch of sugar, ice, lemons, water, set up a table somewhere, and sell lemonade at a price higher than the capital invested in the materials and/or not allow the person setting up the lemonade stand to make or keep any money in excess of that capital investment? Or,
(2) Buy a bunch of hot dogs, heat them up, put them on buns and sell them at a profit and retain the profit?

To you - people who set up businesses like that are "assholes" and they are keeping you down? They make life unfair, and if they make money and build a successful business, then that's all luck, so they should either be tortured and killed, or they should at least have all of their money and assets seized?

Isn't that what you advocate?

If that's not what you advocate, then would you allow people to do the things listed in (1) and (2)?

[JimC]

CES wrote:

Moreover, what is the alternative? Certainly not communism. Even if we assume that what you say is true - and it might be - I really haven't seen the stats you're talking about - but, even if we just assume you are correct, what we're left with is: (a) communism -- no chance at upward mobility at all, because the concept is meaningless - everyone gets according to their need and gives according to their ability, and that's that. and (b) capitalism, you have some chance at upward mobility, but not much.

If the choice is between capitalism and communism, then I'll take the former because at least there is a chance.

That, of course, is not the only choice in the world, and what many successful countries have chosen, like Europe and the US, is a mixed and regulated economy, which at least tries to maintain a capitalist basis, while providing protections against certain eventualities that may arise, and also protects personal liberties as well as the interests of the society as a whole.

I agree, certainly not full-blown communism. It has to be a system of well-regulated free enterprise, and the main arguments will be over the nature and degree of the regulation; I suspect I would want somewhat more than you...

I would say that it is pretty clear that the offspring of the wealthy have a headstart in the race for degrees, and to some degree that is unavoidable. What I want to see is an increase in the resources society devotes to higher education, partly in general funding for higher education, but particularly in removing the financial hurdles for poor but capable students who wish to attend Universities. I know some programs are in place, but I would argue that it would be money well spent to do even more.

[Jason]

So, to make it fair, one of the things you would advocate doing is to make it illegal for a person to do the following:

(1) Buy a bunch of sugar, ice, lemons, water, set up a table somewhere, and sell lemonade at a price higher than the capital invested in the materials and/or not allow the person setting up the lemonade stand to make or keep any money in excess of that capital investment? Or,
(2) Buy a bunch of hot dogs, heat them up, put them on buns and sell them at a profit and retain the profit?

To you - people who set up businesses like that are "assholes" and they are keeping you down? They make life unfair, and if they make money and build a successful business

It's inequitable is what it is. What of the person who hasn't the means to do either 1 or 2 (both of which require expensive licenses, fees, and are subject to regulation by the way)? What of the person who does 1 or 2, but barely gets by while a person who is a do nothing CEO of a major bank receives a 50 million dollar bonus because they saw a better than expected profit from the labours of people like him/her? Is that equitable?

Now ask me about the person on state financial support who does nothing to earn the money they receive and will do so for life. Go ahead.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES wrote:

Moreover, what is the alternative? Certainly not communism. Even if we assume that what you say is true - and it might be - I really haven't seen the stats you're talking about - but, even if we just assume you are correct, what we're left with is: (a) communism -- no chance at upward mobility at all, because the concept is meaningless - everyone gets according to their need and gives according to their ability, and that's that. and (b) capitalism, you have some chance at upward mobility, but not much.

If the choice is between capitalism and communism, then I'll take the former because at least there is a chance.

That, of course, is not the only choice in the world, and what many successful countries have chosen, like Europe and the US, is a mixed and regulated economy, which at least tries to maintain a capitalist basis, while providing protections against certain eventualities that may arise, and also protects personal liberties as well as the interests of the society as a whole.

I agree, certainly not full-blown communism. It has to be a system of well-regulated free enterprise, and the main arguments will be over the nature and degree of the regulation; I suspect I would want somewhat more than you...

I'm not sure that's the case. I have no problem with reasonable regulation. It's the self-defeating stuff that bothers me.

I would say that it is pretty clear that the offspring of the wealthy have a headstart in the race for degrees, and to some degree that is unavoidable. What I want to see is an increase in the resources society devotes to higher education, partly in general funding for higher education, but particularly in removing the financial hurdles for poor but capable students who wish to attend Universities. I know some programs are in place, but I would argue that it would be money well spent to do even more.

When I was going to college "the poor" could go to my college for free.