It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitalism and Wealth Creation - Kardashian Style

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Props to her, but damn.. Should we be celebrating a rich person getting richer?!?

I love capitalism, but not this current system of the rich making each other more rich..




posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
This is the tragedy of the commons extrapolated.
However there is a variable that you did not take into account. That is time.
Supply and Demand does work in this fashion at the most bare of inputs in the short term. However it does not function like this in the long term. The reason for this is that this does not take into account changes of supply and demand over time, or the effect of technology and changing taste on the supply or demand.

For instance using your potato salad analogy we could stipulate that 10 years from now some wonder technology comes about that uses potato salad for an originally unknown usage, increasing demand. Conversely potato salad could be found to cause cancer, resulting in a diminishing demand. Potato blight could also take hold and diminish the supply.

However in these instances there is still another issue of the elasticity of demand. This is that changing tastes for consumption could take place, or another good could also infringe upon the consumption of the good like lets say turnip salad. If people started moving to a good that is an alternative to potato salad, the overall demand for potato salad would go down. Or there could be the introduction of a new complimentary good, say hotdogs, that increases the demand for potato salad.

Overall these somewhat relate to the tragedy of the commons, where when one person gains another loses, however the part of logical argument that is over looked is in relation to if it is actually applicable. In the case of something as widely understood as "wealth", it currently does not apply to Humans on Earth. Some reason for this are as follows, and negate the argument of the tragedy of the commons currently. The first is that all means of future production are not controlled. An example of this specifically is in resource commodification, and the discovery and constant utilization of new sources of resources over time meaning that overall scarcity does not apply. The second is the growth of demand due to consumption changes. This occurs due to more people being born over time, or more people wanting potato salad once they are introduced to this product that were not introduced to it before. Because of these the tragedy of the commons does not apply, and we can safely assume for the time being that we are not in danger of reaching the limits to wealth, and thusly we can make a reasonable assumption along these lines.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Life is not fair. There is some truth to the old adage "It takes money to make money" or as someone told me "The first million is the hardest..." A fact of business and life is that you need contacts, networks, etc.


Doesn't it make sense for a poor person to want to tax her more then? Or a person with no good contacts. That would be in their rational self interest. Just like I wouldn't give up my property to poorer people just make things fair. That would disadvantage me.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
She actually brings negative value to society, as does that whole family.

That said, if people want give her money, it is all on them, and I hold nothing against them except for the crappy values they are fostering upon America and probably elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Thanks for the reply Ed. My earlier reply was simplistic, attempting to focus my thoughts and questions on the topic.

I am going on the assumption here that there are two ways to look at the entire economic structure. One that it is an open system where the wealth of the entire system is generated on an ever increasing scale, that is if the market is allowed to run properly. But on the other hand there is also the view that it is not an open system and that while wealth can be generated in one portion of the market, it is not that it is generated out of boundless sources but rather generates it wealth at the the expense of another. Buggy whips being an old hack of an example. Buggy whips lost out while oil filters gained.

My real problem with this endless opportunity model is that I don't see it as endless at all. With technology now able to produce at a much greater rate creates the need for the producer to force changes in consumer demand in order to sell the product. This is done by advertising and sales gimicks. The process, not of pressnting the product to the public but rather seeking to commerce the public and actually manipulate the public into changing what might have been ''wants'' into '' needs. To me this is not a free market, but rather a distortion of the free market because one side of the market, the producing side, manipulates the other, the consumer.

Likewise, where does the ''cash'' come from to pay for all this wealth being generated. We do not have an unlimited source of ''cash'' or wealth possessed by the consuming public to produce the pockets of great wealth that come from those new and better products being purchased. What is needed here is credit. And credit is borrowing.

Borrowing from where. I see credit as borrowing from the future, creating debt, debt that provides cash today for the product today while paying off that debt in the future. This loop hole in the closed market system which I see being the true nature of the market place allows the formation of greater pockets of wealth now that in reality, the now, do not exist, because debt has replaced real wealth. And that debt can only be paid in the future.

And credit is gambling, gambling that one can either pay off or collect on the debt incurred. This to me seems a rather unsustainable situation.



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 06:53 AM
link   
You basically showed how easy it is to start a company and be successful if you're a known useless personality that was born and raised rich. With the amount of dumb people nowadays that blindly follow their "stars" you or I could do pretty much the same had we had the same opportunity.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
While it nice to here that she didn't have to do a photo shoot, or a porn flick and put that money into something productive.

It not really a rag to riches tale that doesn't actually involve the risk of feast or famine compared to other stories.

But like I said, at least the money didn't get blended and poured into boobs or butt cheeks.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Dbl
edit on 8-3-2019 by Specimen because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join