GENERATIONAL WEALTH

We want equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. Everyone knows it deep down, that's why we fetishize zombie and end of the world scenarios. We want to live in a world where a man's wealth is relative to his merit and not some equation that includes how much wealth he was given at birth.
So how do we fix this? We can't just confiscate your wealth when you die, even if we did - where would it go? There must be a way to provide everyone the same position on the starting line. This would make life better for everyone. Imagine if you had the same level of access to education and to funding your ideas as some harvard grad with a building named after a family member who has a Uncle that works at a VC firm.
What are some realistic fixes for this problem? The more radical the better.

Other urls found in this thread:

money.cnn.com/2016/03/21/technology/twitter-10th-anniversary/index.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

If you work hard and make money then you should be able to give your child a better life. And in a real life end of the world scenario the rich are still gonna come out on top, see south Africa

>that's why we fetishize zombie and end of the world scenarios.
No, it's fetishized thanks to Hollykike and (((Revelations)))

I have an idea OP could slit his own commie throat.

>There must be a way to provide everyone the same position on the starting line.
Wrong.
>What are some realistic fixes for this problem?
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. There will always be inequality.

I agree to some extent - is there a way to accommodate for this? I think it's reasonably, especially because this is what motivates many people to be productive, but I don't like that people like Chelsea Clinton exist

it's not just zombie movies, think about the end of fight club where they blow up the big bank buildings to reset the debt/wealth. People want this (unless of course you currently benefit from the fucked up system)

Not a commie, that's why i'm brainstorming

there will always be inequality of OUTCOME and there should be. its equality of OPPORTUNITY we are talking about here

>think about the end of fight club
I don't watch Hollywood movies user, and neither should you. It's mind-numbing garbage
>People want this
No, a very few at the very top want this. This new social order is being contrived from the top-down and people can't or won't realize that

Which is also impossible, because there will always be nepotism, bribery, etc.
How much further can you level the playing field than we already have?

i can't think of anyone NOT wanting the same opportunities that other have. The only people that don't want this are the people at the top that get handed all the gibs and don't have to try as hard. ((they)) would hate this system because it undermines everything they have worked for.

Sure, it opens up all kinds of worms and no system is going to be flawless. However this is a fundamental problem with the current system and the problem that commies use as leverage to convince poor people that it's not their fault they're poor and we should steal from the rich people. I'm saying that there are probably better ways of solving the opportunity part of the problem while still preserving the outcome - inequality of outcome is desirable, im not trying to remove that.

It's not about having equal opportunity; it's about creating opportunity for yourself. What value does opportunity have if it's just readily available to most people? (((They))) would love to drag everyone down to the same level, it's against nature. You've heard of the New World Order, yes? Well have you ever wondered what the "Old" World Order is? It's the "survival of the fittest", it's competition, and inequality. The wonderful thing about the human species is that in spite of surmounting odds we've managed to overcome it all, and will continue to do so as long as Mother Earth continues to shape our behavioral patterns. You need to balance individualism with collectivism because too much of either can lead to social atomization or full-blown Communism (equality of opportunity as you like to put it)

You are suggesting the redistribution of wealth, so yes you are a commie faggot.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that Chelsea Clinton has more money and power than you will ever have. So is that survival of the fittest? Is she better than you? Smarter? Contributing more to society? Stop the kneejerk reaction and listen to what I'm saying. I'm advocating for survival of the fittest and not survival of the lucky.

I never said anything but about redistributing wealth. Dial back the emotional thinking and listen to what i'm saying

We want neither and you are both delusional and projecting hard.

Generational wealth is an objectively good thing. It is the basis of all civilization. Not wanting to leave wealth for your descendants is a sign of irresponsibility and mental illness.

If you come for my property, I will simply kill you. If you attempt to confiscate more of my childrens' birthright, you will fail.

Sounds like something George (and Alex) Soros would say

You're putting the cart before the horse user. The struggle is the path. You become successful through failure, not through getting anything handed to you - unless you get everything handed to you, which is a result of an uneven distribution, which is natural. It's not fair, but it's the fairest system possible. Even if you could give everyone 50k, who's to say they wouldn't waste it? Why do so many poor lottery winners end up broke again? I suppose the only answer to your question I can give you is hyper-local community building, which enriches everyone around you and strengthens the ties that bind.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I don't wish to take away struggle from anyone, I wish to give struggle to people like Alex Soros. In this system people can still fail, they can just no longer blame it on the system

What you are saying is complete Marxist bullshit. How is taking someone's inheritance and giving it to others not wealth redistribution.

>think about the end of fight club
>I don't watch Hollywood movies

The book you mouth breathing Philistine. How do you use the Internet? Did a friend with average IQ take your potato away and hand you a machine with keys on it? It's called a COM PEW TER, and it's what adults use to do important things. Be careful that you don't get your feces caked hands all over it!

I never said that - I'm asking for solutions and it's you who is going instantly to communism for a solution - communism introduces too many other problems in trying to solve this one, id like to PRESERVE INEQUALITY OF OUTCOME - im not sure how many times i have to say this

>So is that survival of the fittest?
According to the parameters of the society we've established, unfortunately yes. But people like her are a mere symptom of the overall problem
>Is she better than you? Smarter?
False equivalency; adaptability =/= worth or intelligence
>Contributing more to society?
Technically speaking yes she does

>I'm advocating for survival of the fittest and not survival of the lucky.
O im laffin; luck means shit if you're an idiot. You can have all the luck in the world and squander it away. You think the people at the tip-top have too much power? You're right, but why? It isn't because of the opportunity they HAVE it's the opportunity they CREATE. They're the ones who shape the parameters of society for better or for worse, and in order to attain the kind of power they have we need to utilize the same tools their forefathers did. You'll notice a lot time, money, and manpower goes into denying people from moving up the economic ladder. But your proposition is to cut out the rungs

Nice strawman there, faggot
>What is context
Facebook is down the hall and to the left

The whole "70-80% of fortunes are lost within one generation" thing is a libertarian meme that actually describes the problem it's trying to explain away. There absolutely are dumbasses that succeed - Look at George W. You think he'd be president if his last name was Smith? That fucker would be working at Starbucks or living on disability. There has to be a way to prevent dynastic rule. If you look back at the people fucking the country over 100 years ago you'l find it's the same fucking families and it goes back much further than that. There has to be a way to prevent this "muh legacy" system of dominance

>There has to be a way to prevent dynastic rule
By creating a political system wherein one's value isn't determined by money but rather by ideas. The only society to successfully do so is us, but our system has been hijacked and our Republic broken. There will never be an even distribution of resources or power, so trying to go that route is just barking up the wrong tree. One way to free up the wealth accumulation in this country is to throw off the international bankers and their Federal Reserve. Once we take control of our own money supply we can go on to de-monopolize large areas of industry, preferably starting with the media

well the fed needs to be dismantled immediately - it's shareholders are the exact people I'm trying to prevent staying in power. That would be part of the solution. Breaking up monopolies is just treating a symptom I think. If you look at most existing monopolies they only exist because of dynasty support. It's extremely infrequent that a real rags to riches/american dream story actually lives up to the propaganda. Perfect example would be twitter. from what I understand they have yet to turn a profit the entire time they have existed. Who can possibly compete with a company that loses hundreds of millions of dollars for over a decade?

>If you look at most existing monopolies they only exist because of dynasty support
Sure, but the root cause of the issue is government allowing monopolies to take hold. Price gauging can only happen when a relative few control the reigns of a certain market, which is also applicable to most government policies unfortunately. The best way to prevent people from allowing this kind of stuff to happen is to strengthen the core of the society, the nation. An informed and homogeneous society is a healthy one, and viruses like those people would be taken care of by the sheer will of the people. The problem we have now is that the nation has been broken
>It's extremely infrequent that a real rags to riches/american dream story actually lives up to the propaganda
You're thinking too grandiose here; it's more so about making a decent, comfortable, and honest living in a country that allows you economic freedom and political choice.
>Perfect example would be twitter. from what I understand they have yet to turn a profit the entire time they have existed.
If that's true, which I find hard to believe, it'd be very suspect

Twitter has never made a profit:

money.cnn.com/2016/03/21/technology/twitter-10th-anniversary/index.html

Another fun fact is that (at least it was so last year) the ONLY google property that makes money (this includes youtube) is search.

Lots of tech companies are like this, I don't think people realize why it's so hard to compete. You are up against people with endless funding