Exactly.... The super rich have been cheesing Crota for a long time and it hasn't been patched.

This post alone shows the ignorance of the typical American voter and why the US government will manipulate the masses for a very long time to come. With this logic all Muslims should be imprisoned immediately. To think that because someone at some point in time was able to exploit (something) and accumulate wealth and then pass that wealth along to heirs means that we should deconstruct the concept of property ownership. As opposed to, you know, focus on the issue of their original exploitation. Without any question, the most corrupt families in the history of the US have been those connected to the federal government and yet people yearn to transfer more privately generated wealth to their custody. Typical.

Nothing was said about deconstructing the concept of property ownership. If anything, it's about deconstructing the policies that allow for people to abuse their connections to further change policies in their favour.

I agree with YOUR take on the matter, and that is my point on my post. Rather than focus on the fact that some people got ahead in their loot because their parents ripped off the system (or whatever), the problem was how their parents were able to rip off the system. Who gives af if they got extra loot to start with, focus on the og problem. This guy (@Eternity) unfortunately is following populist rhetoric and is lumping in harmless beneficiaries with those who parents were bad guys. Hence my pitchfork analogy that got his undies in a twist.

These days its how it works though ... you get ahead (in most cases) because you had a better start than the rest. You didn't have to pay for college. Didn't have to work while in school. Didnt have to worry about a vehicle. Didn't have to hunt for a job when parents connections got you in ahead of people. Very basic idea

Actually, no that's not how it works, unless we have different definitions of getting ahead. Sure it might work that way for some, but not most. I had a single parent who has about as much connections as Randal the Vandal. I graduated with full loan debt. I do wonderful at the moment and have supported many a friend through their hard times. I know plenty of people who have done well from nothing, and have done poorly in life after having a 'silver spoon'. It's more a product of (a) your value system instilled by your parents and (b) who you are lucky / unlucky enough to hang out with as friends. And that is how it works in reality, an even more basic idea.

Applaud you for being successful on your own (seriously) Im saying you put two identical people and one has the backing of parents/family connections and money... and they get further. If not further then faster to their goals. If they get to their goaks faster than its less time and money spent, which sniwballs more. Getting out of college with zero debt compared to in the hole is a massive difference. Or not having a car payment to work for is another huge burden off kids. The days of working for what you want is gone mostly these days. Most people are in debt and everything purchased on credit. People just pay for most their shit in payments. All my opinion though.

But of course some people will start ahead, who cares though? Some people start with birth defects, should we start crippling everyone to make it even? The point is, focus on the real issues, not collateral impacts.

True.. not worthy worrying over it. Lets compare it to IB Rift! Im the "i pay for everything myself" solo player You are the "ride the coattails of daddy" 6 man fire team Who wins !!! [spoiler]NOBODY BECAUSE IB RIFT SUCKS![/spoiler] [spoiler]im seriously joking around [/spoiler]

Agree, IB is the real villain here. It's caused a rift between the community!

[quote]This post alone shows the ignorance of the typical American voter and why the US government will manipulate the masses for a very long time to come.[/quote] I don't live in the US, which fortunately means that through my life I've been able to mostly steer clear of the ridiculous economic rhetoric that regularly permeates US media at election times. [quote]With this logic all Muslims should be imprisoned immediately.[/quote] I don't see what Muslims have to do with anything in this thread. Not only is your point here devoid of logic, it is offensive. [quote]To think that because someone at some point in time was able to exploit (something) and accumulate wealth and then pass that wealth along to heirs means that we should deconstruct the concept of property ownership. As opposed to, you know, focus on the issue of their original exploitation.[/quote] I would argue that any historic issues of exploitation should be focused on by the appropriate bodies, if there is a practical reason to do so. Wealth generated by exploitation isn't what is being discussed here however - we're talking about intergenerational transfers and their progressive impact on general levels of weath inequality in the US. [quote]Without any question, the most corrupt families in the history of the US have been those connected to the federal government and yet people yearn to transfer more privately generated wealth to their custody. Typical.[/quote] I'm not a US history expert - I wouldn't know how some of the richer families in the US acquired their original fortunes - but again, that's not relevant to what is actually being discussed here.

Let me simplify my post for you. You demonize intergenerational transfers by connecting them to 'bad apples' so to speak. You construct an exploitative example to describe your latent issues with such transfers. It would be akin to saying there are some bad muslims, so all muslims are bad. Hence my analogy that (surprise, surprise) offended you. Your problem is that either you are too naive to notice distortions of arguments, or much worse, you are fully aware and it is an intended manipulation in the present case on your part. I don't see anything inherently wrong with passing along your 'stuff' to your children. If they get a leg up, so be it. If they are accumulating wealth faster because of a headstart, there's an argument that they are actually a better steward of those resources than others (i.e., since it's growing). And then there's Darwin's law and all that. There is absolutely no validity to the notion that we are supposed to have equal paths in life. Equal opportunity is so nebulous that it is simply a great soundbite for mass audiences. Everyone can get to the same place in life, no matter with how much or little with which they started (in general, of course). At least in this country, that is. The biggest issue is not what resources they start with, but one of parenting. And there are certainly just as many horrible parents that are wealthy as there are poor ones. Since you aren't from the US, perhaps you have a hard time connecting with the notion of personal liberties which here in the US is kind of a big deal. So in a way, I can understand how you are getting to your argument against private ownership.

Well, I'm American and understand exactly what the OP is saying. A lot of the inequality is the result of inherited wealth, whether in the form of stock ownership passed down from generation to generation, or the ownership of land, that constantly increases in value whether because of inflation or decreasing amount of it. Don't oversimplify things with narrow and simplistic conservative free market bullsh*t.

[quote]Let me simplify my post for you. You demonize intergenerational transfers by connecting them to 'bad apples' so to speak. You construct an exploitative example to describe your latent issues with such transfers.[/quote] Stop attempting to divert the debate - wealthy individuals and the corporations/lobby groups that they control/influence have a significantly disproportionate influence on policymakers in most developed nations, especially the US - this isn't up for debate, nor is noting it as a fact demonising intergenerational transfers. Individually, parents want to make their children happy and ensure that their lives are free of financial worries - there is nothing wrong with this ideology at all when examining it at an individual level (it's an emotionally/instinctual driven behaviour after all) - however, aggregate it across a nation, a legal system that encourages the practice, and enough time (generations) - in the modern US intergenerational transfers are now one of the major causes of wealth inequality. There are a number of other factors - globalisation for example has also contributed a fair amount to the current situation in the US - many low-mid skilled workers have found their careers no longer viable, as their jobs can be more cheaply outsourced to poorer countries. The post I made above on wealth inequality is in response to the OP's suggestion that everybody in the world starts off with equal opportunity, and the only factor in getting ahead is how hard you work - which is far from the truth. It was not intended to 'demonise' the idea of intergenerational transfers, just to point out the well-documented flaw in that commonly held belief. [quote]It would be akin to saying there are some bad muslims, so all muslims are bad. Hence my analogy that (surprise, surprise) offended you.[/quote] 'Intergenerational transfers' are not a group of people - even with your misinterpretation of the intent of my post, it is in no way comparable to a (within the US) marginalised group that are regularly discriminated against, and are presently an active target of real-life and online hatred. Your comment was not relevant, and it is highly offensive. [quote]I don't see anything inherently wrong with passing along your 'stuff' to your children. If they get a leg up, so be it. If they are accumulating wealth faster because of a headstart, there's an argument that they are actually a better steward of those resources than others (i.e., since it's growing). And then there's Darwin's law and all that.[/quote] Great - thanks for sharing your personal view with me. I'm happy for you to feel personally that it's ok if not everybody has equal opportunities in life - you're entitled to hold any such view that you like. I'm not attempting to convince you that your view is somehow 'wrong' - the purpose of my post was simply to point out that not everybody does in fact have equal opportunity (something that we obviously agree on). [quote]There is absolutely no validity to the notion that we are supposed to have equal paths in life. Equal opportunity is so nebulous that it is simply a great soundbite for mass audiences. Everyone can get to the same place in life, no matter with how much or little with which they started (in general, of course). At least in this country, that is. The biggest issue is not what resources they start with, but one of parenting. And there are certainly just as many horrible parents that are wealthy as there are poor ones.[/quote] There is absolutely no validity to many notions that form the backbone of how we view the world morally (e.g. is the death penalty acceptable? For which crimes?) Many moral views that are widely held have simply been passed down from parents to unquestioning and impressionable children before they have a chance to logically assess the worth of the belief. One general area of responsibility for Governments in most developed nations is to maintain a set of laws that roughly reflect the community views on such issues - a topical example of this in the US is the current ongoing debate about abortions. There isn't a technical strict 'yes/no' answer to these questions, different people have different views for their own reasons - and beliefs about equal opportunity are no different. [quote]Since you aren't from the US, perhaps you have a hard time connecting with the notion of personal liberties which here in the US is kind of a big deal. So in a way, I can understand how you are getting to your argument against private ownership.[/quote] Indeed - the US has some very interesting and unique cultural beliefs that are tied up in it's history. The idea that equal opportunity truly exists (already, thus not requiring any Government intervention), that the financial fortunes of a person are theirs entirely to control, as a function of hard work, is much more prominent in the US than most other developed countries. Ironic, that such a belief should be so deeply held in a country where stats have shown a strong correlation between the financial fortunes of parents and their children.

It appears that it would be quite burdensome to try to offer you the necessary insight to provide you a better understanding of what happens behind the scenes so to speak but needless to say, intergenerational wealth transfers has about as much influence on the socioeconomic ills this particular country suffers (i.e., the US) as Destiny does. That is, they both impact in an immaterial way. There is no such thing as equal opportunity in life. Just like there's no such thing as weapon balance in game with this much diversity. I won't bother explaining to you the more relevant drivers since you're so easily offended. In fact, that's probably one of the biggest contributors to "not getting it" or otherwise being able to properly dissect socioeconomic issues, you've probably fought so hard to avoid offensive information that you've unintentionally dumbed yourself down as a result ('no offense'). You speak as if governments actually represent communities. They are not the community, they are a group of people that have been given absolute control over your life. Good luck with championing "Government" laws to reflect community views. No thanks, I'll stick with championing communities that can govern themselves. And I'll just summarize the difference between you and the OP (and me, I might add): you imply that inheritance plays a bigger factor than your own hard work and effort, we think the opposite. We'll just agree to disagree.

[quote]It appears that it would be quite burdensome to try to offer you the necessary insight to provide you a better understanding of what happens behind the scenes so to speak but needless to say, intergenerational wealth transfers has about as much influence on the socioeconomic ills this particular country suffers (i.e., the US) as Destiny does. That is, they both impact in an immaterial way. There is no such thing as equal opportunity in life. Just like there's no such thing as weapon balance in game with this much diversity. I won't bother explaining to you the more relevant drivers since you're so easily offended. In fact, that's probably one of the biggest contributors to "not getting it" or otherwise being able to properly dissect socioeconomic issues, you've probably fought so hard to avoid offensive information that you've unintentionally dumbed yourself down as a result ('no offense').[/quote] Ah, I see you've run out of argumentative steam, so are resorting to the good old 'My points are right but I can't be bothered explaining why' - classic, and unfortunately for you, requiring a large amount credibility to be accepted (of which you currently have zero, given your continued inability to contribute a single relevant or intelligent point to this discussion). Please stop attempting to rewrite your utterly irrelevant and foolish point about Muslims - it had nothing to do with the discussion and remains offensive. Further, it had nothing to do with socioeconomic issues nor economics in general - you've already admitted the intent of your comment above. It was poorly thought out. I'd suggest that you remove it. On a separate note, if you'd like to properly discuss actual micro/macro socioeconomic issues in the US, I'd be more than happy to hear you out (although this is veering further off topic). I have plenty of experience working with complex longitudinal data sets that include detailed demographic information, and building predictive models from them - and thus a strong awareness of how an individual's characteristics (yes, even the ones that you are labelling as 'controversial') can influence lifetime financial pathways, and need for Government assistance at various points. [quote]You speak as if governments actually represent communities. They are not the community, they are a group of people that have been given absolute control over your life. Good luck with championing "Government" laws to reflect community views. No thanks, I'll stick with championing communities that can govern themselves.[/quote] What you've written here is nothing but personal ideology. You're welcome to hold your own opinion on what a Government should and shouldn't be involved in - and I certainly won't tell you that you're wrong. Irrespective of whether you believe Governments should or should not reflect such views however, in the long term, they do - at least to the extent that the issues are able to gain public momentum (also worth noting here that the ability to generate immense momentum for change has increased exponentially since the internet became widely accessable). You're seeing widespread public debate on these types of issues and in some cases resulting legistative change (e.g. gay marriage) in the US right now. [quote]And I'll just summarize the difference between you and the OP (and me, I might add): you imply that inheritance plays a bigger factor than your own hard work and effort, we think the opposite. We'll just agree to disagree.[/quote] Intergenerational transfers, of which inheritence is a small subset - do play a substantial role in determining the financial successes of individuals - there is no argument on this point. It is a well researched and accepted economic fact. Hard work of course plays a role in success as well - but relative to the starting point. A person from a poor socioeconomic background will generally have to work a lot harder to achieve the same level of weath as somebody born into a moderate socioeconomic background. To put that another way, two people, one from a moderately wealthy background and one from a very wealthy background, who work exactly as hard as one another, will not on average have equal fincancial successes in their lives. For the same amount of work, generally the person from the wealthier background will generate far more weath than the person from the moderate background. You may believe (and are absolutely entitled to do so) that it is [b]acceptable[/b] for individuals to have different levels of opportunity based on their parents wealth, the crux of this entire thread after all is whether this should be accepted or not. That's a very different argument however to claiming that intergenerational transfers plays no significant role (which again, is blatently wrong).

That is clearly the economic strategy employed by republicans and those that vote in that direction...ALWAYS, always vote against their own economic interest unless they are already wealthy, or they have inherited wealth.