Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires

Not once have I seen a decent rebuttal to this statement.

Regardless of your views of socialism (which are probably wrong), you can't deny the validity of this quote.

Other urls found in this thread:

iflscience.com/technology/graphene-loophole-could-provide-clean-and-limitless-energy-in-the-future/
news.uark.edu/articles/40324/using-the-natural-motion-of-2d-materials-to-create-a-new-source-of-clean-energy
sciencealert.com/graphene-levy-flights-limitless-power-future-electronic-devices
m.pnas.org/content/113/42/11709.full
advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601536.full
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength
arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08803.pdf
gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/train-travels-down-the-track-next-to-the-dharavi-slum-area-news-photo/94969740#train-travels-down-the-track-next-to-the-dharavi-slum-area-of-mumbai-picture-id94969740
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000497165.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

(((Steinbeck)))

>poor in capitalism
>believe they can be millionaires once they get their shit together
>poor in socialism
>get shot

There is constant class mobility in the US
Steinbeck is a moron
Socialism is faggotry

So they'll be millionaires in socialism?

Atleast in capitalist societies they can eat.

How embarrassing that people have aspirations. They should be ashamed.

>fuck money n' sheit
>but also i'm entitled to your money because reasons

no thanks yid, how about you give up your money first?

I think the second part of why socialism never worked here was because, compared to being poor in other countries, being poor in America is fucking awesome.

and all socialists see themselves as temporarily unemployed bureaucrats you fucking moron

>Atleast in capitalist societies they can eat.

Only if they can afford to

>other people have more money than me
>I should be allowed to take some of it
Anyone with an once of morality knows it's wrong to take what isn't yours. It's the most basic of ideas and we teach it to children when they're three. The reason socialism never took root in America is because we are/were a mostly moral nation.

this. being poor in america is only as bad as you make it. if you take out too much credit, if you don't keep a stockpile of liquid cash in a savings account for emergencies, if you eat out instead of buying ingredients and preparing your own meals, if you stop nurturing your career by taking classes or getting certified in updated techniques, tools and methods, if you spend extra funds on extravagant, retarded, overrated disney vacations instead of doing simple things to improve your life at home, if you spend extra money on drugs and alcohol instead of spending that time and money to become a better, more interesting person, on nurturing your relationships and talents, then you will be unhappy, rich or poor.

>comparing the single greatest economic depression that the world has ever known to normal life in the soviet union

Just a depression goy, it'll only happen once, I promise!

It amuses me that you're this out of touch.

There's nothing wrong with that statement, it seems pretty accurate to me. If anything it just sounds like a really butthurt way of saying that Americans lack class consciousness. Considering the fact that tons of wealthy Americans have rags to riches type stories, it's not like it's an entirely delusional point of view even if it's unlikely that you personally will become rich someday. Having ambition>demanding gibs any day

This always sounded like a very healthy attitude to me.

Where has """""""""True Socialism"""""""""" ever flourished?

>reeeeeeeee trying is pointless
People with that attitude flock to socialism, it's no wonder it fails.

>iflscience.com/technology/graphene-loophole-could-provide-clean-and-limitless-energy-in-the-future/

>news.uark.edu/articles/40324/using-the-natural-motion-of-2d-materials-to-create-a-new-source-of-clean-energy

>sciencealert.com/graphene-levy-flights-limitless-power-future-electronic-devices
>By Thibado's calculations, a single ten micron by ten micron piece of graphene could produce ten microwatts of power

A cube whose sides were 10 micron square would have 60 microns of surface area, so one cube = 60mW. A small cell is about 10 microns in diameter, so you can fit billions of these things into a 1kg chunk of matter. That's megawatts.

Graphene can also fly at 20% of c, self-power, and it makes a great muscle;

>m.pnas.org/content/113/42/11709.full
>In recent years, a new class of artificial muscles, based on highly twisted fibers, has emerged that can deliver more than 2,000 J/kg of specific work during muscle contraction, compared with just 40 J/kg for natural muscle

>advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601536.full
>Our study reveals that although the 3D graphene assembly has an exceptionally high strength at relatively high density (given the fact that it has a density of 4.6% that of mild steel and is 10 times as strong as mild steel

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength
>Steel, 1090 mild, Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) = 841

841 * 10 = 8,410Mpa = 8.41Gpa.

>pp13
>Figure d, Kinetic energy distribution spectrum of electrons emitted from graphene sponge under laser (450 nm) illumination showed a broad energy distribution
>4.25E4 mW cm-2

>arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08803.pdf
>New technologies are now being developed that involve high- power lasers firing at 1gram solar sails in near-Earth orbits, accelerating them to 20% the speed of light (c) within minutes

Pic related.

>There is constant class mobility in the US

Total bullshit.

The rebuttal to this statement is the reality.

America keeps pushing for all kinds of welfare stuff.

From food stamps which I don't think I know how they work exactly to Obama care replaced by Trump under a different name, Obama phone and other socialist policies.

Have fun with your idealistic view on America.

No, more like
>poor people should just save more money
if they had money to save they wouldn't be poor.

That's what amuses me.

It's ridiculous advice delivered from on-high like it's manna from heaven and not just dribble from someone who doesn't understand a situation he's never been in but still feels qualified to comment.

>Total bullshit.
Within the 1% there is something like an 80% annual change. Look it up.

Not really. That sort of advice is related to people who could save money, but spend it on stupid shit, live a lifestyle they can't afford and then cry about not having money.

If you look at self made millionaries you'll see that they worked hard(usually), lived what they could afford, invested in various things and now live the life that others want.

>which implies that it doesn't happen every day

It doesn't?

>people who could save money, but spend it on stupid shit, live a lifestyle they can't afford and then cry about not having money.
And I'm sure that everybody in this thread will loudly and confidently assert that these people exist in huge numbers and make up the overwhelming majority of "the poor" despite having neither statistics or even real life experience to back these opinions up.

It's true. At least in capitalist societies, people see that they can be and live better if they work hard. It's not uncommon seeing millionaires who were really poor in the past.

Unlike under socialism where "fuck getting out of the hole, if i can't get out of it, you shouldn't either" is the norm.

"That guy makes a lot of money? Fuck that, he should share it with me" Socialists never try to improve themselves, everyone needs to scale down to their level.

Thanks to that backwards way of thinking we have things like affirmative action, fat acceptance, etc.

It did only happen once though. It has been almost a century since the Great Depression, and an economic crash like that hasn't happened again. If you want to argue, you should probably know the facts first.
Yeah, pretty much. Still waiting for your reason why this is a bad thing. Our GDP is ahead of almost every nation in the world except a few Western European nations that we practically pay the defense fee for. Seems like capitalism works out pretty well for the American working class.

Lets talk ethics.
Why should these people be equal to me?
Are humans equal in merit?
By what metric?

This is what America looks like in 2017

You don't need a rebuttal to a statement made without evidence..

The reality is that people who oppose socialism are people who work hard and think others should work hard too. Socialists are the opposite.

If you're playing that game then it's fine people starve under socialism too

>starvation due to depression in capitalism isn't the fault of capitalism!
>starvation in socialiam
>IDS DA FULT OF SOCVIAALALEEESMSMSMSMS!!!!!!!!!!!

Our GDP is ahead of every nation for the moment.
China is getting close and will undoubtedly surpass us, but it certainly isn't because of Mao's Communism which may as well have put them in the stone age.
There's not much actually communist about China today.

Democrats are temporarily embarrassed bourgeoisie.

The beta revolution never took root in America because the betas see themselves not as providers but as temporarily embarrassed chads.

>being poor in America is fucking awesome.
Corporations depend on employees being so desperate for work, the employees accept any deplorable conditions or pay. Economic slavery at its finest.

Socialism doesn't rob only from millionaires, it robs from capital owners, I don't need to be a "temporarily embarrassed" millionaire to own capital.

Now fuck off red.

Why should everyone starve under Communism rather than a few starve under capitalism?
The greater good should trump impossible ideals.

That's usually the majority of poor people.

Smoking and alcohol consumption is higher among poor people. Can you live without cigarettes? Yet, they cost a substantial amount that could be used better. Do they majority of people buy processed food? Apart from it being not healthy it costs more. Do they drive cars or public transport? The majority of people are poor people, but the majority of poor people don't use the public transportation system.

MUH GDP.
All increased GDP correlates with is with leftist degeneracy, lower birthrates, nihilism, trannies, faggots, feminism, and other degeneracy

>The reason socialism never took root in America is because we are/were a mostly moral nation.
All nations on Earth are a mix of socialism and capitalism. Even America is 10% public sector

That's a 99% sub-saharan African neighborhood. It still looks better than just about every 99% sub-saharan African neighborhood on the planet.

When I was living a few dollars above minimum wage in a high income area, I still found it pretty easy to save money every month. I can see where it becomes a problem if you have a kid or medical bills to pay but everyone I know that does have unavoidable expenses like that, on a shoestring budget, still comes out okay. The point is: if you're a good worker in America success will often find you, as it has for me and many people I know.

Let's talk ethics, what's the problem with it?

The only metric is law. Everything else should be the way people work for it.

Hello, Mr. Friedman

>It still looks better than just about every 99% sub-saharan African neighborhood on the planet.
>burger education

Rather I'm in-touch. I have been what you would consider "poor" and been surrounded by poor my whole life. They all spend what little money they have on dumb shit because any time they experience a surplus beyond their basic needs they ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS treat it like winning the lotto and spend it on something that they want. They all spend money on cable tv and if you try to tell them how retarded it is they act like you are from another planet. They buy a fancy phone and if you tell them how retarded that is they act like you are telling them to kill themselves. They all buy a big-ass flatscreen tv (oh but i got a GREAT deal on it! it was on sale for only 200 dollars!) so they can watch a BIG VERSION of a cable tv channel with forty quadrillion minute commercial breaks per half-hour. They will experience a slight cash windfall, maybe they got earned income tax credit in the spring, and they will spend it on trying to "start a business" by buying into a pyramid scheme like Scentsi Candles. Oh and don't you dare try to explain how multi-level marketing really works and that they are being fucked for nothing and that they are not only not making money, they are spending money and in return they will become to obnoxious to people that all their friends will now avoid them like the plague... And so on and so on... And they all act like all these problems just fall out of the fucking sky. lol it's ridiculous.
Yeah but whatever guy you are the one with your finger on the pulse, not me, what the fuck do I know?

This is what socialism looked like under the Soviet Union.

Where have you ever had real socialism that wasn't either just brutal regimes masquerading as socialists, or short-lived revolutionary entities like the Paris Commune?
-North Korea calls itself a "Democratic Republic", which is certainly not the case.

GDP doesn't correlate with any of those things.

HDI and GDP per capita correlate with wealth. Wealth correlates with leftism. Leftism correlates with the others you mentioned.

Kek
Every time.

Anyone can be a millionaire in the USA.

Well, prove him wrong then.

Well guess what friendo, filthy third wolder here:

Seeing poor people living in shitty unfinished houses with payperview TV antennas is not a rare sight over here.

Poor people prefer paying DirecTV and buying iPhones than to finish their fucking houses and installing basic things like running water.

You fix that through deincentivizing low skill, low income people continuing to have children in order to drive up demand for labor as well as having strict immigration policies in order to avoid importation of workers who will displace your own domestic labor.
Use tariffs to ensure companies are unable to simply leave and export their goods.
By doing so one has created an insulated market, but the ideal is never as easy to accomplish as the reality of compromises.

Steinbeck is not a kike you philistine

...

>America keeps pushing for all kinds of welfare stuff.
No America keeps trying to get rid of any welfare it has. Capitalism is an economic system that provides for capital owners. Socialism is an economic system that provides for society.

>Obama phone
The subsidized land line was a Reagan deal and Bush Jr upgraded it to cell phones.

>Obama care
It's literally the 1993 GOP heath care plan for America.

A capitalist society can afford to share some love.
A socialist society doesn't have anything to give, it's all state property and everyone's equally poor.

It's actually because people find socialism fundamentally degrading. It removes all sense of autonomy a person has.

A lot of people would rather be poor or just OK but in control of their lives than being fed by the government.

Africa has an area of tens of thousands of square kilometers, I don't have the time or the want to go find pictures. Spend some time looking it over yourself, dummy.

Income statistics are all you need. People can scrape by at $15k, but also can't seem to save money at 35 or even 50k. Lifestyle creep always happens, and it happens at all income levels.

It's ipso facto. We can easily observe this phenomenon with basic labor statistics.

I love Natsion Socialism, evrything about it is just great.

This graph of inter-generational income persistence disagrees with you.

>tons of wealthy Americans have rags to riches type stories
And yet social mobility in the US is lower than in "socialist" countries such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway.

It's a flippant quote that shouldn't b taken too seriously. There is absolutely no evidence that most Americans have ever seen themselves as *likely* to become millionaires - only that they would prefer the freedom that comes with allowing the chance to live and die more so by their own choices than by government dictate.

It's one thing to say "The system that allows for the chance - however slim it might be - for people to become millionaires is better than the alternatives".

It's another thing altogether to say "It is likely that I will become a millionaire. I am a millionaire-in-waiting."

" He was of German, English, and Irish descent.[7] Johann Adolf Großsteinbeck (1828–1913), Steinbeck's paternal grandfather, shortened the family name to Steinbeck when he immigrated to the United States. The family farm in Heiligenhaus, Mettmann, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, is still named "Großsteinbeck.""

So maybe not so chosen after all.

>socialism is an economic system that provides for society
Yeah, look at this prosperous society built under the power of socialism, its really #sobeautiful

capitalism
>hard times and people go hungry
socialism/communism
>several million people die of starvation
CHECKMATE

>Comparing being treated like cattle to working for pay in a competitive economy.

This was the strength of America. The belief that ones circumstances can be dramatically improved through hard work.

>if some people starve in capitalism, then everyone should starve under communism
That is what you are saying, that's not even a strawman representation of your argument.

It is fine for people to starve under communism because that's natural selection at work ensure fucking idiots dumb enough to try it die off.
In Capitalism, if you are low class it's generally because your were dumb enough to arrive there and deserve it.

I'm not going to argue what your country is doing, but you do have leftist policies. The ones you mentioned still exist and If I remember correctly something around the figure of 45% of your government budget goes towards the welfare state.

How much does your army cost you? 5-8%?

I wouldn’t want to deny it. It’s the very thing that made America great.

i dont really see the problem with that

Umm sweetie the person who made the claim has the responsibility to prove the claim

>Soviet Union
>Posts a picture of "democraqtic capitalist" India.
gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/train-travels-down-the-track-next-to-the-dharavi-slum-area-news-photo/94969740#train-travels-down-the-track-next-to-the-dharavi-slum-area-of-mumbai-picture-id94969740

That's not even remotely accurate. During the peak of the Gilded Age socialism was a rapidly spreading belief system and Eugene Debs ran for President as a socialist, garnering more of the popular vote than any third-party candidate before or since. More than a few American cities had socialist mayors or governments, even into the Sixties. The elites acknowledged this problem (poverty and income inequality), and tackled it thus:

1. Immigration restrictions to shrink the labor pool and push up wages.
2. Expansion of labor rights to the point where every third private-sector worker belonged to a union.
3. Other Great Society social expenditure.

From 1910 to 1980, the average real wage expanded almost 2% annually, with the American Gini Index and other metrics of popular well-being closely resembling that of the Nordic welfare states today between 1940 and 1975.

It is worth noting that since 1980, all basic metrics of popular immiseration, particularly economic indicators, have been rising, and though Trump has been dealing wisely with the immigration problem, the state will have to expend more effort in tackling these problems, or we'll be drowned in faggy Steinbeck memes until they become reality.

He's right but guess what?
That's a good thing.

Buying cigarettes and alcohol is always stupid no matter how much money you have.

Your argument is simply that rich people can afford to be stupid.

Not to mention that the rich are far more likely to waste exorbitant amounts of money on "healthy" food unnecessarily simply for the status associated with getting fresh vegetables grown on a private estate delivered every morning. But that's "okay," whereas smoking is not, even though it costs a hell of a lot more than smoking. You have no idea how the poor rich and no idea how the rich live (and all the stupid shit we waste money on) and feel like you get to pass judgment on both.

Again, your argument is just that rich people can afford to make stupid decisions with their money. Indeed the only difference between a rich person and a poor person is luck of the draw. There's no correlation between wealth and intelligence like there is between income and intelligence.

>The point is: if you're a good worker in America success will often find you
This is wrong.

If you're intelligent high incomes will typically find you. Conversely, if you're unintelligent you will probably never get a high income even if you're a good worker.

Stop conflating hard work with valuable work. Plenty of poor people work hard, but are simply not capable of work that's worth more than their meagre wage. In short don't promise people lies. Just tell them straight up that there's no place at the top for dumb people and the American dream is gated behind genetic privilege.

>Poor people prefer paying DirecTV and buying iPhones than to finish their fucking houses and installing basic things like running water.
Perhaps because consumer goods are sometimes cheaper than basic necessities.
Do you know how much it costs to install running water in a building?

>Why should everyone starve under Communism rather than a few starve under capitalism?
Communism is stateless. What the idiots call "gommunism" turns out to be State Capitalism.

And under State Capitalism (the Soviet Union for example) Russia goes from the poorest, illiterate monarchy in Europe/Asia to America's only superpower rival in 50 years. China isn't communist either, but it has the people working as a team sacrificing for the state like they're hypnotized. China's economy is now on par with the USA and many more people employed.

>There's no correlation between wealth and intelligence
So what? The succession of wealth to future generations is half the reason people are driven to be productive anyway.

>How embarrassing that people have aspirations

Socialism chains aspirations to the state - in other words, to the interests of a few elite people.

Capitalism does the same thing.

>Anyone with an once of morality knows it's wrong to take what isn't yours

Trademarks, copyrights, patents, etc are theft from the collective treasury of humanity.

That sounds exactly like most of the people I know, except they waste tens of thousands of dollars on frivolous stupid bullshit instead of a few hundred.

Or do you actually think that once your net-worth gets above a certain amount you NEED to buy a huge mansion?

Just like the Pole, your argument is simply that rich people can afford to be stupid - not that they aren't.

That chart shows countries that are willing to take immigrants at the top. There is going to be disparity when you do that. You are telling me that there isn't opportunity in fucking SWITZERLAND.

This is why non-swedish Scandinavia is at the bottom. Everyone there is native and has a family lineage dating back centuries. Everyone has an inheritance since they aren't importing people without wealth.

>Corporations depend on employees being so desperate for work, the employees accept any deplorable conditions or pay.
What a retarded faggy thing to say. Why do employers offer more benefits now than before?

>there's no correlation between wealth and intelligence
I suspect there's a strong correlation between those who keep that accumulated, generational wealth and those who are intelligent.

I agree.

My point, though poorly expressed early in this thread, is simply that all the stupid behaviour of the poor is exactly replicated at all income levels.

In fact higher income households tend to experience more financial distress than lower income households.

Lifestyle creep is a good phrase.

>capitalism
>>hard times and people go hungry
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

How can you rebut a ridiculous statement like that? It's simply untrue. The support of capitalism is a support of the system not support for a mislaid fantasy. The comment tells me more about Steinbeck and those who take it seriously than it does about the people it mischaracterizes.

People are always starving in socialism.

Steinbeck. In the words of PJ O'Rourke: "Dying was the basis of tragedy to Steinbeck. The only thing worse was being alive." Translation: Fuck that sad sack.

The Nordic countries are "social democratic" welfare states - which means that they are still capitalist, just with high tax rates and a lot of government gibs. You should really know this.
Soviet Union had lower standards of living than the United States until the end. This is a fact. cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000497165.pdf

>He thinks Russia is a Superpower rivaling the US economically, militarily, or otherwise
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You can make a case for China, but they're not communist any longer.
State-Capitalism is not the same as communism.

>So what?
So arguing that poor people are just poor because they're dumb and make dumb decisions, but that rich people are rich because they're smart and make smart decisions, is not supported by data.

>I suspect there's a strong correlation between those who keep that accumulated, generational wealth and those who are intelligent.
There is no correlation between wealth and intelligence.

>no correlation between wealth and inteligence
What lol. Have you looked at the distribution of wealth?

Pic is Africa

>Russia goes from the poorest, illiterate monarchy in Europe/Asia to America's only superpower rival in 50 years.
By stealing US state secrets.

>China's economy is now on par with the USA and many more people employed.
It only took like 4 times more people, who also steal US tech.

GOMMUNISM IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE