We are a capitalist country with very few capitalists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter the system it is often said that if everyone were put on a level playing field, and all wealth was equally distributed, that within a decade the poor would be poor again, and the rich would be rich again.

Not 100% of the time, but that rule tends to speak true most of the time.

This is the stupidest thing I've read today, though the day is young. This is "often" said? By whom? And how can this rule be true even 1% of the time when such a distribution has never actually happened?

Read more history books and economic books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the OP.

I always understood that the objective of a "capitalist country" is to have most aspects of life (and governance) to be controlled by corporations and to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few (10%, 1%, 0.1%, take your pick).

Mission accomplished. It was totally a bipartisan success.

You haven't understood anything yet really. Study more, less bias.

Keep an open mind and question everything you think you know. You are failing to do that, which is obvious enough from your posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter the system it is often said that if everyone were put on a level playing field, and all wealth was equally distributed, that within a decade the poor would be poor again, and the rich would be rich again.

Not 100% of the time, but that rule tends to speak true most of the time.

Disagree. Also, it's never been tried, so, how would you possibly assert this with a straight face?

NP. Spending habits and work ethic are a big factors for financial security. Some people will always get ahead and some people never will.

This.
Luck plays a part, but overall it is a person's traits that determine their financial success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter the system it is often said that if everyone were put on a level playing field, and all wealth was equally distributed, that within a decade the poor would be poor again, and the rich would be rich again.

Not 100% of the time, but that rule tends to speak true most of the time.

This is the stupidest thing I've read today, though the day is young. This is "often" said? By whom? And how can this rule be true even 1% of the time when such a distribution has never actually happened?

This is actually very true. Look at China, most of the privately held wealth evaporated due to government confiscation, but social status structures rapidly reimerged. There is a strong genetic component to SES and redistributing wealth has a largely temporary impact on inequality. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/06/09/the-grandchildren-of-chinas-pre-revolutionary-elite-are-unusually-rich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that people don't want to own assets. They'd rather spend their money. They may buy a home for living, but that's it.
I always ask why they don't want to buy or own assets. The answers are very different, but show ignorance or not understanding what assets are more than anything.

This. Most poor people simply don’t value the concept of wealth and equate “rich” to having a high income (along with a flashy lifestyle) as opposed to high net worth and a secure/stable life.