<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>
Aye that's certainly true. The poor of capitalist countries are much better off than average person of communist countries. Nevertheless, social mobility is still very hard, and the American dream really is more or less unacheivable. Although, I suppose in communism social mobility is nonexistent too, since everyone is equally poor.
Nevertheless, I don't have much issue with corporatism if it includes dirigism; a government should control corporations, not vice versa. I agree your poor are far better off then the poor of elsewhere but once again, from rags to riches is a fairy tale. Those who eat shit will sadly have to east shit for the most of their lives. I don't think capitalism is completely worthless as an idea I just think it should be open to critique, which I am sure you agree on.
Sure, though most critiques I'd have with it are ones I'd have about it, stem from reality itself. Individualism can suck, for the lazy, dumb, envious and it sucks for those that do start with a bad hand, but most people do have the opportunity to change. But blaming others is a good solution too. That or the corruption, that would come from any government or society, because some people suck. But as pessimistic as I usually am, I'd like to think most people want the same things in life and are generally decent people. And because libertarian governments are oh too wacky (and is bound to be a meme for merely mentioning them.) Free market capitalism, is the best we got. Because nothing is perfect. (exactly why the idea of 'equal for all' while no one works and yet live in a utopia, being possible is the damn stupidest thing I've ever heard.) :/
"but once again, from rags to riches is a fairy tale." Okay I'm desperately trying to re-find the study where they observed the bottom of america becoming in the top 1 percent over a course of time. But not having the best luck, but it exists. -.-
Not it, but it goes into your statement. It's no fairy tale. No it's not overnight, but not doom and gloom scenario's either. (also unimportant but if you look it up, many celebs and others have literally gone from rags to riches.)
cato.org/publications/policy-analysis…"For those who reach the 1 percent of income, spending long periods of time in that bracket is relatively rare. According to Hirschl and Rank, only about 2.2 percent of people spend five or more years in the top 1 percent of the income distribution from age 25 to 60. Just 1.1 percent spend 10 or more years in the top 1 percent. Attaining 10 consecutive years in the top 1 percent of income is even rarer: just over half of 1 percent do so.57 In short, there is no calcified class of 1 percenters who stay there, earning enormous incomes year after year.
At the same time, it remains possible for the poor to become rich, or, if not rich, at least not poor. Studies show that roughly half of those who begin in the bottom quintile move up to a higher quintile within 10 years.58 A more recent working paper found that 43 percent of families in the poorest income quintile and 27 percent of those in the second quintile saw earnings growth of at least 25 percent over a two-year period.59 These numbers may be somewhat distorted by one-time asset sales (such as a house), but still show considerably more economic mobility than commonly understood.
And their children can expect to rise even further. One out of every five children born to parents in the bottom income quintile will reach one of the top two quintiles in adulthood."
"a government should control corporations, not vice versa." Neither should be controlling either. And both are -kind of- controlling both in certain ways today. But I digress...
