PDA

View Full Version : Why do people fall for jerks?



Silfir
03-11-2010, 11:14 AM
Taking the off-topic discussion starting here (http://www.adom.de/forums/showthread.php?t=10134&page=40) and transporting it to its own thread.

Why do women sometimes choose the inconsiderate cheating asshole, get hurt and used, then bend over and ask for more, all the while hoping he will eventually change for the better?

The thread title says "people" because the opposite (men unable to seperate themselves from a cheating inconsiderate asshole woman) also happens plenty often.

Al-Khwarizmi said it has to do with self-confidence, or the appearance thereof - that women will actively choose males who appear self-confident, even if it is because they just don't care about anything but their own satisfaction. I think self-confidence, namely the lack of it, can also be the answer to why these same people, when treated in horrible, inexcusable ways, still desperately look for excuses and cling to what they can find. "I don't really deserve better", "I won't find anyone else"... Lack of self-confidence, and fear of being alone.

I can't offer any particular insight on the topic. I do know, from personal experience, that sometimes loving someone just doesn't seem to be enough.

To keep this thread from becoming too emo: NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON.

spectre
03-11-2010, 12:16 PM
I think it's this kind of toxic attraction. People who don't have self confidence, want partners who have plenty. Because they have no self-confidence, they can be easily manipulated.

Also, never underestimate the power of fear of being alone. I've seen marriages built on that.

Dudley
03-11-2010, 12:27 PM
AND the power of love.
And don't believe that people without self confidence are easily manipulated. It's actually the reverse, the ones who have too much SC cn be manipulated through that trait. It's bloody hard being a friend to non SC people.

SC= self confident

Jack the Ripper
03-11-2010, 12:34 PM
I've struggled with the same question myself, as to why we tend to like something that's not really good for us. Why we take the good things for granted and begin to appreciate them less (a nice woman who is really kind but seems naive and slightly boring) but at the same time stick around in a relationship where we're not properly appreciated. I think it's because of the extra-excitement, since you never know what can happen the next moment: now you've broken up, tommorow you're back together again and, as the fictional Count of Monte-Cristo once wrote: "Happiness doesn't exist by itself, it's simply the contrast between our previous and our current state."

Eventually, due to my pastime of reading quotes and all sorts of things about psychology on Wikipedia and the likes, having already got past the obsession with detecting lies told to me via Paul Ekman's system, I encountered this here quote by a guy named Daniel Kahneman:

I had the most satisfying Eureka experience of my career while attempting to teach flight instructors that praise is more effective than punishment for promoting skill-learning. When I had finished my enthusiastic speech, one of the most seasoned instructors in the audience raised his hand and made his own short speech, which began by conceding that positive reinforcement might be good for the birds, but went on to deny that it was optimal for flight cadets. He said, "On many occasions I have praised flight cadets for clean execution of some aerobatic maneuver, and in general when they try it again, they do worse. On the other hand, I have often screamed at cadets for bad execution, and in general they do better the next time. So please don't tell us that reinforcement works and punishment does not, because the opposite is the case." This was a joyous moment, in which I understood an important truth about the world: because we tend to reward others when they do well and punish them when they do badly, and because there is regression to the mean, it is part of the human condition that we are statistically punished for rewarding others and rewarded for punishing them. I immediately arranged a demonstration in which each participant tossed two coins at a target behind his back, without any feedback. We measured the distances from the target and could see that those who had done best the first time had mostly deteriorated on their second try, and vice versa. But I knew that this demonstration would not undo the effects of lifelong exposure to a perverse contingency.

This kinda explains both why I'd stay with someone who didn't treat me properly rather than the kind, yet rather boring girl who did. I don't really think she was dim-witted, come to think, just not as flashy and attention-hogging. I really could apply this in many of the contexts described by you guys (and gals, Sadface and Elone :) ) in the Merchant thread.

Dudley
03-11-2010, 12:57 PM
LAUGHED when i saw jack the ripper as a name appearing in that thread.
I don't agree with your statistical punishment, it's just plain false, got counter example of the cases which i helped, was rewarding for me. Though the second part is statistically true imo

Jack the Ripper
03-11-2010, 01:15 PM
LAUGHED when i saw jack the ripper as a name appearing in that thread.

Yeah, I know my username is rather dubious. Unfortunately, I can't really change it once I've registered with the forums. I found that the statistical thing is true on a larger scale, despite the occasional exception existing.

Dudley
03-11-2010, 01:23 PM
I'm maybe lucky then. Or manage to wrinle an advantage of everything. Or both.

fazisi
03-11-2010, 07:11 PM
Why do people fall for jerks?
People are crazy.

Dudley
03-11-2010, 07:37 PM
Why do people fall for jerks?
People are crazy.

Yeah, that's even a pleonasm

Angelus
03-12-2010, 09:20 AM
This is simple. Women are attracted to jerks, because it's a sexual thingy. Believe me, sex is far more important to women than men! If you don't have manly qualities it becomes really difficult to get laid.

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
03-12-2010, 09:31 AM
Yeah, life is cruel but interesting. 3 years ago I had a wife (6 years of living together), I was pretty poor (my salary was about 200 $ per month) so when she left I thought that it was all about money. I thought that I will not be able to live without her but I had to get used to it. Time has passed, now I get 10 times more, and all that girls that were looking at me like I was piece of shit find me an interesting person. But I dont need them. I became self-sufficient. What is the morale of this story? Babes need money. Loving life in the poverty is myth, because she will run away with the first money pouch who will invite her. Only ugly hags will handle to the only man they can tie to themselves. Sorry for bad English.

Dudley
03-12-2010, 11:16 AM
@Angelus : why would i (or any man which is a human being) care about being laid? That's a consequence, not an end. If it's an en, you can o see the bitches, less work to the same end...
@boris : I don't agree. maybe it's because i'm young, but i've known ROMANCE existing between poor people. WITH proposition of richer guys. She disagreed to all of them, because it was love. It's strange that the best people are the ones who go rapidly, she was crunched by a car around a week after her last refusal. And yes, i think that this wasn't an accident. But rich people are always above laws <.<

Sadface
03-12-2010, 02:20 PM
Boy, I can feel the sexism roiling and boiling in this thread...

Dudley
03-12-2010, 02:27 PM
Boy, I can feel the sexism roiling and boiling in this thread... What's the problem about sexism? it's the only reason that galatery exists in the first place. And girls are superior to men in nearly every aspect.

Sadface
03-12-2010, 02:32 PM
Perhaps I overstated myself; I was mostly referring to boris's
"babes need money" statement, that women are only attracted
to people based on their monetary status, and the "only ugly hags
stay with people they married". Sorry.

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
03-12-2010, 02:44 PM
Hey, no offence, but how often did you see a bum surrounded by sexy ladies, who try to guess all his wishes? :))

Life is life, most of them are really attracted by material wealth. Of course there are some girls of all virtues (she was beautyfull and smart, kind and wealthy), but I never met any of them :)
The worst of all is that TV teaches babes to be bad, to be stupid whore (like it was in one episode of south park). :)I

Angelus
03-12-2010, 04:16 PM
was mostly referring to boris's
"babes need money" statement, that women are only attracted
to people based on their monetary status

I believe Russian women are strangely attracted to money, but in general women like sex.

Al-Khwarizmi
03-12-2010, 04:33 PM
I think what you say depends a lot of cultural issues. For example, in my country (Spain) there are women that go hunting for rich men; but fortunately they are a minority. But in Russia it is probably much more common, since I receive lots of spam from websites where young Russian women advertise themselves and they clearly say that they are looking for a wealthy husband, they don't even try to hide it. No offense meant but it is what I see on the internet.

I think it's related with the level of sexism in a country. In places that have advanced a lot in gender equality, like Scandinavian countries, women don't go looking for rich men because they want to achieve things by themselves, and it would be humiliating for them to depend on a man. But in sexist societies, women (who are also sexist) don't value themselves, and think that being with a rich man is the best thing they can do in life.

In my country there are sexist women that think like that, but fortunately less and less as time passes. I hope your country goes the same way, because that kind of sexism is bad both for women and for men. Being with a woman that refuses to make decisions and think by herself is not even fun.

Silfir
03-12-2010, 04:46 PM
Boris, you give off a bitter and biased vibe. I guess having a bad marriage behind you explains that to some extent. Doesn't make any of your generalizing statements more true, though. No one in this world knows nearly much as they think they do, after all.

Incidentally, why would girls be superior to men in every aspect? Is it because they have boobs? I like boobs to be sure, but a) that's only one aspect and even if you let that count, what about boobless women (are breasted women superior to breastless ones? Are we talking about the potential for possession of boobs?), and b) isn't one of the main sources of relationship problems the misunderstandings fueled by assumptions and misconceptions, of which sexism, whichever kind, is often a source?

In an age in which men wear pink fluffy shirts and become nurses, and women drive Harley Davidsons and give people the finger, one would think people would be a bit less willing to make thoughtless generalizations. And yet, the reality of it is that people will still tend to do what they want, and what they want is much too regularly determined but what they think they are expected to want. So women will get told they are supposed to look for "manly" guys, and guys will get told they are supposed to look for "girly" women. Traditional gender roles are self-fulfilling prophecies.

Not sure chivalry is an argument "for" sexism either. People can be courteous to each other without that depending on their gender. Much of what people refer to as "chivalry" is pretty outdated now. If I walk through my university building with my hands full carrying a box of printer paper, have to go through a door, and a woman passersby casually holds open the door for me, that probably violates a couple of traditional rules of chivalry - I mean, I let a woman inconvenience herself for my sake! - but for modern times, that was little more than common courtesy - she held open the door for me because it was a minor inconvenience to do so and kept me from going through the comparatively larger inconvenience of setting the box down and picking it up again (a box full of paper is heavy), or opening the door with one foot while standing on the other and trying to keep my balance (my preferred method, looks goofy and is probably slightly dangerous). And I have to say, if the traditional concept of chivalry were come to be fully replaced by a modern concept of general common courtesy, I would not cry a single tear. The good things about chivalry are not related to its inherent sexism.

Dudley
03-12-2010, 05:14 PM
@Silfir : it's true that chivalry is outdated by modern courtesy. I nevertheless try to respect chivalry THEN courtesy, and not the contrary. Besides, while it is true that, as the chivalry code induces i tend to respect other men, i tend to respect women more. Beats me. And when i said that women were better in most aspects than men, it's because *picks up book from Emile Cioran* *puts down book* ... look for it, too tired to find the quote. Basicly, it's an exacerbation of the characteristic of men.

@Al-Khwarizmi : Complete agreeal. Here in france women tend to look for courtesy/chivalry. Guess we're too old fashionned

Jack the Ripper
03-12-2010, 06:31 PM
You might all want to bear in mind that Russia is still a slightly more traditional society than Western society. Gender roles are just beginning to become blurry, as opposed to the West where sexual discrimination is such a bad thing, in Russia it's a common view among men that "women should be banned from driving" and "whenever you see some drive like crazy, all over the road, it's always a woman" . I'd say Romania is somewhat in-between in this respect, not as sexist as Russia appears to be, but a whole lot less egalitarian than Western Europe.

My apologies if my perception of Russian society is inaccurate. I base my observations purely on what I've read and heard in some rather unreliable papers. The quotes above are from Arsenal football player Andrey Arshavin.

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
03-12-2010, 10:59 PM
well, nice to see the appraising of our country in that way, man :)
To be true sexism was mostly defeated during soviet times. No, really guys I don`t lie you. Ok, may be we are barbarians for you (damn it Boris! don`t post to the forum of the creator while you are drunk!).. err but our wasteland is big and we are different barbarians. Yeah. I`m the Northern barb for example.. we also have south barbs.. east barbs.. and even west ones you know.. they separated recently.. anyway our traditions are really different. All the talks about russian sexism is mostly related to our southern kine. Your beloved Chechnya, Dagestan, Osetia and Georgia that also separated from our friendly family (damn I really thought that they are our brothers until those summer Olympics in Pekin in 08/08/08. Sexism in our country is related to muslims mostly. In all other places wife often means more in the family than the husband, we have a lot of jokes about mans incompetence. So. when Southern man tortures his 3rd wife they don`t pay too much attention in the newspapers about his origins - he is russian! Damn theese guys are even allowed to have several wives! I`m kind of jealous :)) But anyway. Dont judge us too severe. We are better than you think. Don`t judge us by your opinion on immigrants, prostitutes and bandits. The worst people are leaving their country much easier than good ones.
From Russia with love (drunk) Boris.
P.S. and yeah about my previous sexist posts: its just about the capital.

yisk
03-13-2010, 07:22 AM
There is a huge difference between big cities and provincial towns in Russia. In large cities such as Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ekaterinburg quite a lot of gays, lesbians and a variety of subcultures (punks, rockers, tolkienists, etc.) Women's freedom there almost is not prejudiced.
But in the provincial towns and villages, it is simply dangerous to walk on the streets with long hairs (for men). In these places, only one common subculture - a criminal one. Criminal society more harshly against women. Also that criminal habits are responsible for the homophobia in Russia, because people perceive gay men as being raped in prison and, therefore, unworthy of respect.

p.s. I have not read the entire thread, so my words may be offtopic. )

gut
03-13-2010, 10:15 AM
Gonna have to check this thread more often : )

To respond to the OP about gals falling for jerks, I say they mainly don't.
The gals we see or hear about falling for jerks are mainly the attention
grabbers and drama seekers, otherwise how do we see and hear so much
about their ~soooo bad~ relationships? All the time. Honestly, in my
so-called civilization, one can barely walk past a magazine rack without
seeing the names Brad and Jen. If you don't know those names. I envy
you more than you can know.

We think of the prettiest gal in high school, and remember how she was
never impressed by virtues like kindness or honesty, preferring instead
popularity/status or money. We (oddly) seem to never remember the
non-attention grabbers and what they preferred, yet they comprised the
majority : )

The virtue that is most appreciated by either sex is kindness, followed
closely by honesty. Those two virtue alone aren't everything, but they
are more appreciated than looks or money by anyone intentionally
seeking a long term relationship instead of a fling.

Dudley
03-13-2010, 10:44 AM
Honestly, in my
so-called civilization, one can barely walk past a magazine rack without
seeing the names Brad and Jen. If you don't know those names. I envy
you more than you can know.
Well. Damn. Who are they??? the main reason i ask that is that i only read or see my father's newspapers. Which never seem to talk about such stories :p. Seriously, who are they?

Grey
03-13-2010, 10:53 AM
We think of the prettiest gal in high school, and remember how she was
never impressed by virtues like kindness or honesty, preferring instead
popularity/status or money. We (oddly) seem to never remember the
non-attention grabbers and what they preferred, yet they comprised the
majority : )

And for every man moaning about women that only care about status/money, there's a woman complaining about how men only care about looks. There's a little bit of shallowness in all of us, yet we only ever seem to remember the extremes.

Al-Khwarizmi
03-13-2010, 11:19 AM
Well, I'm a man and I am honest enough to admit that we generally do care about looks. Not "only", of course. But more than what would be advisable.

Dudley
03-13-2010, 12:06 PM
Well, I'm a man and I am honest enough to admit that we generally do care about looks. Not "only", of course. But more than what would be advisable.
And the hardest is when the looks you care about aren't the ones modern society does.

kraya
03-13-2010, 02:13 PM
Sometimes, its because the jerks were there first. Some jerks are unfazed by rejection while some absolute dicks (I number myself among those) agonize over every possible implication of look and word - and before you know it, the jerk has moved in and wedding invites handed out...

fazisi
03-15-2010, 11:20 PM
I've got a hot girlfriend imo. Other dudes think so too so I'm probably not too wrong. I'm considerate and try to think in an observant and realistic point of view. Some vices are smoking lots of reefer and and frequently using "rough english" haha. I play video games, am a broke ass university student going to school on student loans, and not the most attractive guy out there.

Hope for all!

prime
03-16-2010, 07:19 AM
I've got a hot girlfriend imo. Other dudes think so too so I'm probably not too wrong. I'm considerate and try to think in an observant and realistic point of view. Some vices are smoking lots of reefer and and frequently using "rough english" haha. I play video games, am a broke ass university student going to school on student loans, and not the most attractive guy out there.

Hope for all!
But are you a jerk?

fazisi
03-16-2010, 09:45 AM
I don't know the exact definition of a jerk. I try to be respectful of others but if you're a fucking retard, don't expect any fake sympathy from me. If having a spine makes you a jerk, I could see why all the chicks leave the nice guys to whimper in their self-inflicted misery.

EDIT: But not the actual retards. I'm pretty cool with those guys and girls. It's the ignorant shithead retards I mean.

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
03-16-2010, 10:59 AM
I don't know the exact definition of a jerk. I try to be respectful of others but if you're a fucking retard, don't expect any fake sympathy from me. If having a spine makes you a jerk, I could see why all the chicks leave the nice guys to whimper in their self-inflicted misery.

EDIT: But not the actual retards. I'm pretty cool with those guys and girls. It's the ignorant shithead retards I mean.

common post your photo here (with tablet which says "hello adomites") and we will tell you if you are jerk. we will judge you fair and just. :)

Dudley
03-16-2010, 11:05 AM
He IS. Oh wait, he didn't post.

Doorsfan
03-16-2010, 04:58 PM
I fear that this point of view is kind of skewed due to the fact of that philosophies and views are always dependant on the given experience of a person.

To be honest in all fairness that i can muster ; i do not believe in that there is some kind of universal thougt of falling for jerks. Surely, there are the extremist situations where you have someone who end up in the hands of someone who hits 'em or generally mentally abuse them alot. Sure. I can assure you of that i could very well spew all the hate i've mustered up in my mind to just relieve my self - it would be the easy way out. But to be fair with it - here's what i think :

It's not a knowing choice a person makes. No-one wants to end up hurt, the part of where they do get hurt and all that - i honestly haven't seen a single situation where the person in question can't have figured that with their own thinking capacity. Harsh - but if a girl always comes back to the one and same guy and always end up the same way - i can't consider it more then fair that they stand for their turn.

Yes, that is quite a harsh judgement. Without involving my own bitterness, i think that empathy can be messured much like the messurement of respect - it's something you actually feel, not "think".

Apart from this - Is it really that confounding that self-confident people with money, are successfull etc etc. end up with more? It's like the rich gets richer and the poor just keeps losing their wealth. My own personal stance to all this is that i actually try to kill everything i feel in the regards of what i feel - Cause my own perspective doesn't alllow me to believe better about people, then that they are self-centered, will not follow anything but their own will and that it is not a question of IF a person will betray you, it's a question of when.

Dudley
03-16-2010, 05:43 PM
-snip-that it is not a question of IF a person will betray you, it's a question of when.

I don't agree. Symbosia can exist in human species.

fazisi
03-16-2010, 08:41 PM
This is the face of a jerk.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x1/desyncer/wink.jpg

Sadface
03-16-2010, 08:45 PM
Hot damn, that face sure is jerky! Just look at that snarky-ass
expression. :p Just kiddin ;)

nathrakh
03-16-2010, 08:46 PM
If I were gay I'd hit it.

http://idhitit.org/gallery/general061.jpg

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
03-17-2010, 07:51 AM
hey that`s not him! There were no tablet or paper with his name written on it! Where did you get this photo man? In magazine of weirdy lamps? :)

fazisi
03-17-2010, 10:47 AM
From my couch...

yisk
03-21-2010, 06:03 PM
what is "jerk"?
idiot? fool? bastard?

fazisi
03-21-2010, 07:57 PM
I think "jerk" falls somewhere between "asshole" and "idiot".

warheart
03-21-2010, 08:51 PM
Ye, closer to asshole in my opinion, but what do I know.

Cash
04-28-2010, 03:28 AM
Women go for the Alpha males, it is simple and instinctual. The alpha males command the most respect from others and tend to be leaders by default. Through out the animal kingdom females chose the alpha male's genes for their offspring. Why do women choose assholes? Overt assholes tend to be alpha males because they get away with it, without being challenged by others in the given social setting. Not all alphas are assholes, just large percentage.

I hope this logically answers your question.

grobblewobble
04-28-2010, 12:25 PM
If all men who manage to attract a woman are alpha males, we got an awful
lot of alpha males. ;)

Let's not over generalize please. I know one, maybe two clear cases of women
who are attracted to "jerks" (over and over again). One of them is an
especially tragic case, a woman who's had tens of men and was cheated and
maltreated over and over again. No idea why she keeps falling for that.

But I also know plenty of women who aren't attracted to jerks at all. The most
general thing you can say is that people are different.

Doorsfan, you sound pretty bitter.. like you had a very bad experience of being
cheated or something. If it's any consolation, I can assure you that there do
exist loyal people.

Cash
04-28-2010, 05:23 PM
[QUOTE=grobblewobble;50100]If all men who manage to attract a woman are alpha males, we got an awful
lot of alpha males. ;)/QUOTE]

please don't misunderstand, i do not mean that, i just try to explain why women can be attracted to jerks more often than one would expect.

Angelus
04-29-2010, 11:22 AM
If there are women here that want to prove they don't get alpha males always then I'm the man to get.

"If there are women here." Yeah, sure..

Cash
05-02-2010, 06:00 AM
If there are women here that want to prove they don't get alpha males always then I'm the man to get.

"If there are women here." Yeah, sure..

it would help if you didnt sound so desperate

Silfir
05-02-2010, 03:30 PM
or like an idiot

Theym
05-10-2010, 08:12 AM
Apart from this - Is it really that confounding that self-confident people with money, are successfull etc etc. end up with more? It's like the rich gets richer and the poor just keeps losing their wealth.

Money habits are usualy taught to you by your parents, and if they were successful then chances are you will be too, then again, confidence is usualy taught by your parents too. . . .

grobblewobble
05-10-2010, 10:16 AM
The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is an unevitable result of capitalism. It's just what happens when you have a free market. Wealth allows long-term investments, resulting in more wealth. Poverty means you can't make long-term investments (in a very broad sense), meaning your situation is likely to become even worse in the future. Fortunately, governments sometimes redistribute some wealth back to the poor, but the situation remains far from perfect. It hasn't really got to do with self-confidence.

fazisi
05-10-2010, 12:15 PM
I'm poor. Hopefully, I'm one of those kids from the ghetto who makes it big, like in TV.

Doorsfan
05-10-2010, 12:18 PM
Poverty and misery is quite common - but being able to smile despite that, on the other hand - is rare. And the later of thoose two, is usually something that could attract a person.

gut
05-10-2010, 02:14 PM
> The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is an unevitable result of
> capitalism. It's just what happens when you have a free market.

My old quasi-commy friend, let us highjack this thread for our Marxist ramblings.

I'd say 'free' market isn't all that is to blame. The goverment also has a vested
interest in concentrating wealth. If an economy has even wealth distribution, say
$100/10 people, at a 10&#37; tax rate = a $10 gov budget. Oppressive distribution
yields much better though. First, completely exempt 9 people (at $5 each) from
taxes completely, as $4.50 is no big loss anyway. Next, tax the rich guy (the other
$55 of yer economy) at 50% for a total of $27.50 (nearly tripple the other budget).
The masses are happy because you are 'on their side', and the rich guy is happy,
as he still has ~6 times as much money as anybody else. The only angry guy is
some hillbilly off in the boonies that nobody listens to anyway.

> Poverty means you can't make long-term investments

Worse, it means circumstance often forces frequent visits to high interest rate
lenders. Loan sharks could really learn a thing or two from these guys.

> Fortunately, governments sometimes redistribute some wealth back to the poor,

There is a difference between 'redistribute' and 'allocate'. They are REALLY
good at the 'allocating' part, not so good at the whole 'distributing' part.
Following the money usually reveals that little that is allocated to the poor
ever reaches them, but is instead siphoned off along the way by corporations.
A suspicious minded person may even think that the siphoning was actually
planned along with the allocation. Lobbyist do make nice sallaries for a
reason, I suppose ; )

It was Marx who said "in capitalism, all gains must be private, all losses must be public."

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
05-11-2010, 10:06 AM
- will KGB exist when the communism will come?
- No, by then people will learn to self-arrest

grobblewobble
05-11-2010, 11:10 AM
Good one Boris. :)

I didn't want to advocate communism. I was just pointing out drawbacks of a total lasser-faire policy, where the free market goes completely unchecked. I'm well aware that the communist regimes we've seen weren't exactly utopia.

Gut, you're confirming my prejudices about Americans here: as soon as you say something mildly socialist, they start about how you can never trust any government and call you a communist.. ;)

Theym
05-11-2010, 08:40 PM
What does this have to do with the subject of the thread?

gut
05-11-2010, 10:51 PM
> What does this have to do with the subject of the thread?

Nothing, that's why I announced it as a highjack.

> they start about how you can never trust any government

We may disagree on this, but I do say you can't trust government.
Does it surprise you that a lot of politicians say the same exact thing?
They will tell you that government doesn't love you, it's not related
to you, and it's not even your friend. I'll leave sarcasm to the side
and just mention that my own gov has, in the past, inflicted their own
people with diseases in order to study the effects, constructed
'concentration camps' to isolate their own citizens, and started wars
for purely financial reasons. Sadly, it's prolly one of the better ones,
even considering all that. Nosir. You can not 'trust' government.

> and call you a communist

Tone doesn't always come across. I wasn't saying you were a communist.
I meant that you question capitalism, and I was approving. People do
(Americans more, you say?) tend to call others 'commies' if they
question capitalism, (I've been there, believe me) and that's why I was
making a sarcastic joke of it. Should have used [/sarcasm] marks : )

Honestly, I don't even advocate mild socialism, as I think properly
functioning capitalism has it beat by a mile. How to get it functioning
properly though? To my eyes, reading and understanding the criticisms
of capitalism is the best way. Wonder how likely those stupid insurance
company bail-outs would have been, had more Americans read Marx.

Are they really going to continue calling bail-outs 'free market'?
How, exactly? Oh well, as long as the people are buying it, why not?

grobblewobble
05-11-2010, 10:57 PM
I'm sorry, that was a stupid post of me and unwarranted. Me troll.

Guess I should talk less about things like ponies and politics.

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
05-12-2010, 04:30 AM
Rainbow Ponies!! Candy mountain!! Wheeheee!!!

Timpak
05-14-2010, 12:16 AM
The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is an unevitable result of capitalism. It's just what happens when you have a free market. Wealth allows long-term investments, resulting in more wealth. Poverty means you can't make long-term investments (in a very broad sense), meaning your situation is likely to become even worse in the future. Fortunately, governments sometimes redistribute some wealth back to the poor, but the situation remains far from perfect. It hasn't really got to do with self-confidence.

This is based on the wrong assumption (marx) that the economic resources are limited, which they are not. On a free market both poor and rich get richer, the poor get richer faster than the rich. A more free market has correlation and causality with higher growth and higher growth has both correlation and causality with less poverty, better health and better welfare.


Good one Boris. :)

I didn't want to advocate communism. I was just pointing out drawbacks of a total lasser-faire policy, where the free market goes completely unchecked. I'm well aware that the communist regimes we've seen weren't exactly utopia.

Gut, you're confirming my prejudices about Americans here: as soon as you say something mildly socialist, they start about how you can never trust any government and call you a communist.. ;)

Looking at the above, your view on the economy is very similiar of that of a communist.

grobblewobble
05-14-2010, 01:22 AM
> the wrong assumption (marx) that the economic resources are limited, which they are not
If I take this literally, this is clearly wrong. If economic resources weren't limited, everybody would be infinitely wealthy and we would all have all the luxury available that we could ever want.

But I have the feeling you mean something more subtle than that, could you please explain?

> Looking at the above, your view on the economy is very similiar of that of a communist.

In my view, a free market will not automatically lead to a good or fair distribution of wealth. On the contrary. That's a problem with capitalism. You do not get paid what you deserve; you get paid as much as your product happens to be in fashion. Many of the dirtiest (and direly needed) jobs like nurse, cleaner etc are underpaid while moviestars are drowning in money for being pretty. You get ill? Not enough money to pay the doctor? Bad luck, you die. That's raw capitalism, and that's why I'm against it.

However, I admit that capitalism has advantages. It stimulates initiative.

So I am critical of the free market, yes. It is not a magical solution to everything, as some seem to be thinking. But communism entails far, far more than that. Communism is a very radical system and I do not believe it to be any better than unrestricted capitalism. In my opinion, a compromise is best.

gut
05-14-2010, 05:07 AM
> the poor get richer faster than the rich.

please tell me that was a joke. The only way a minimum wage worker
can remain alive in America right now is due to social programs. Read,
socialism. It is annoying to a guy like myself, who is turned off by
socialism, that without it, working Americans would starve. How much
easier and more wise to pay a living wage in the first place?

> your view on the economy is very similiar of that of a communist.

I didn't read his post that way. My definition of communism is 'equal
distribution of wealth'.

Irinka
05-14-2010, 10:34 AM
See, Boris? You start talking about ponies and other start talking about politics! I blame you for all that economics/politics offtopic talk ;)

Timpak
05-14-2010, 11:26 AM
If I take this literally, this is clearly wrong. If economic resources weren't limited, everybody would be infinitely wealthy and we would all have all the luxury available that we could ever want.

But I have the feeling you mean something more subtle than that, could you please explain?

Actually even if you take it literally its non sequitur. What I mean is we do not have a set amount of wealth. Just because one person becomes richer doesn't mean another one have to become poorer.


In my view, a free market will not automatically lead to a good or fair distribution of wealth. On the contrary. That's a problem with capitalism. You do not get paid what you deserve; you get paid as much as your product happens to be in fashion. Many of the dirtiest (and direly needed) jobs like nurse, cleaner etc are underpaid while moviestars are drowning in money for being pretty. You get ill? Not enough money to pay the doctor? Bad luck, you die. That's raw capitalism, and that's why I'm against it.

However, I admit that capitalism has advantages. It stimulates initiative.

So I am critical of the free market, yes. It is not a magical solution to everything, as some seem to be thinking. But communism entails far, far more than that. Communism is a very radical system and I do not believe it to be any better than unrestricted capitalism. In my opinion, a compromise is best.

What is a fair distribution of wealth? Is equal distribution of wealth a self objective? How do one decide which jobs deserve how much pay and who decides that(apparently you from what you write)? The state does not have monopoly on the word welfare so no capitalism does not kill people that are sick. It is merely an economic system where people own the capital and the factors of production instead of the state.


please tell me that was a joke. The only way a minimum wage worker
can remain alive in America right now is due to social programs. Read,
socialism. It is annoying to a guy like myself, who is turned off by
socialism, that without it, working Americans would starve. How much
easier and more wise to pay a living wage in the first place?

What does America have to do with a free economy?

grobblewobble
05-14-2010, 12:20 PM
First off, I realize this is all extremely off-topic (and possibly boring and annoying at the same time). But hey, feel free to ignore the discussion and talk about something else. :)

> Just because one person becomes richer doesn't mean another one have to become poorer.
True, but that's not what I said. What I said is that a poor person has little options to invest in his future in whatever way, which means it is likely he becomes even poorer (or at least makes it hard to improve his situation). And that this works the other way around for rich people.

> What is a fair distribution of wealth?
Very difficult question and of course it does not have an objective answer. At least I'd say it is desirable to avoid extreme unfairness, where some people work hard and are still at risk of starvation, while others can sit back and enjoy free lunch. Which is, on a global scale, what we see in the real world.

> It is merely an economic system where people own the capital and the factors of
> production instead of the state.
Perhaps I should use another word instead of capitalism. What I mean is the belief that a free market will automatically bring welfare to everyone and that any interference with it must be avoided. Neoliberalism?

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
05-14-2010, 12:54 PM
> What is a fair distribution of wealth?

Ok first of all we should get rid of all economic exchanges (I mean everything that is somehow involved with actions, obligations, valued papers and even money themself)
than we should make a labour price list of hour values.
different professions will have different hour values of labour.
Professions like bankirs, brokers or economist shoud be forbidden as well as free trade itself.
There should be a maximum limit of hours you can collect per year, so you cannot become richer than anyone
and also cannot spent more than some reasonable time not working. For example you can collect upper limit of labour hours working hard cleaning trash all the year, and then you have to rest for a couple (may be 3 or 4 not more) of months because your labour hours will vanish if you will not spend them.
the more difficult your work is - the less time you have to work to reach your limit and to have your rest.
and of course food will cost very little amount of labour time, and all cost should be managed by the goverment (which I will lead of course)

Edit:The Idea of this is taken from Harry Harryson`s "Steel Rat"

yisk
05-14-2010, 01:41 PM
See, Boris? You start talking about ponies and other start talking about politics! I blame you for all that economics/politics offtopic talk ;)he's just trying to be a jerk, and hoped that someone fall for him.

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
05-14-2010, 02:26 PM
> he's just trying to be a jerk, and hoped that someone fall for him.

First I wanted to write a refutation but than I understood that you re getting back to the topic of a thread!
Good job Yisk!

P.S. Ну в конце концов, зачем мне чтобы на меня ко-то западал? Я старый больной человек!

gut
05-14-2010, 06:37 PM
> What is a fair distribution of wealth?

I'd say one in which the strides of workers were not systematically
rendered useless by illegal activities of gov and business corruption.
There's what, 6 billion people in the world? USA has only 0.3 billion.
That means any time minimum wage threatens to work it's way over
starvation level, all the gov has to do is turn a blind eye to a few 10's
of millions of unskilled workers flooding into the country. There,
problem solved. Dramatically reducing the demand for American
workers is a nice way of keeping the rabble in line.

> What does America have to do with a free economy?

Couldn't have said it better.

grobblewobble
08-28-2010, 03:25 PM
On topic:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/friends.png

garyd
09-03-2010, 07:49 PM
The rich getting rich and the poor poorer in respect to the rich is the natural order of things. It never becomes a problem except when government tries to interfere in the natural order of things.

The only time the rich don't get richer in comparisom to the poor is when we are all starving.

auricbond
08-29-2011, 02:21 PM
The rich getting rich and the poor poorer in respect to the rich is the natural order of things. It never becomes a problem except when government tries to interfere in the natural order of things.

The only time the rich don't get richer in comparisom to the poor is when we are all starving.

Yes. Why do people present the gap as being a problem? Is it envy? Or do they think another person's wealth was achieved at their expense? It's called making money, not taking money.

The fact is, when the gap increases the net amount of wealth is greater among everybody. If a man is a trillion times richer than me, then i'm probably pretty rich myself.

Moeba
08-29-2011, 03:44 PM
Yes. Why do people present the gap as being a problem? Is it envy? Or do they think another person's wealth was achieved at their expense? It's called making money, not taking money.

The fact is, when the gap increases the net amount of wealth is greater among everybody. If a man is a trillion times richer than me, then i'm probably pretty rich myself.

Agree with the first one; it does not necessarily have to be a problem. Certainly it is good to reward people for working, or doing a better job than others. Even though the rewards are often divided wrongly.
On the other hand, even if someone does nothing, he should not die of hunger or something which needs money.

The question is which things should be earned as rewards, and which should be given for free. And, of course, which things CAN be given for free, or which are worth the cost of giving it for free. In my opinion, the basic needs for life and education to some extent should be given for free.

But I don't agree with the 2nd part, just check statistics; some of the richest people live in lands where 98% of the people are starvingly poor, for instance.

auricbond
08-29-2011, 04:13 PM
But I don't agree with the 2nd part, just check statistics; some of the richest people live in lands where 98&#37; of the people are starvingly poor, for instance.

I'd consider how they acquire their wealth and what kind of a culture they have. A modern innovator isn't the same as an egyptian Pharaoh or his modern counterpart. Are these lands you speak of particularly free? Are they intellectually advanced?

Some places will "channel" the wealth into certain pockets, be it the many or the few. The examples you suggest will be of crony capitalism and protectionism, not laissez faire. Any country that practices wealth distribution or economic sanctions on its own people is going to make someone poorer.



On the other hand, even if someone does nothing, he should not die of hunger or something which needs money.

One would hope not, but I believe the fewer enforced safety nets there are, the more natural ones take place, far more fairly and generously. You would have to have a very cynical society for it to be otherwise. If people instinctively want 'safety nets' in place through government programs, why would they abandon those instincts if those programs were taken away? In other words, why would they vote themselves into wealth redistribution but not perform equivilent charity of their own volition if laissez-faire were to occur?


In my opinion, the basic needs for life and education to some extent should be given for free.

If you make it a matter of right, then that means that some people have to provide it unfreely. Rights can't occur at the expense of someone elses rights. If nobody wants to be a doctor but you declare a right to health care, or nobody wants to teach but you declare a right to education, then you have to violate a basic right of others: liberty in this case-- in order to make them provide it.

For me, I don't know how anyone can propose not to pay a doctor given how needed he is. If your life depends on his knowledge and expertise, wouldn't you give him anything he wants within reason? I would. Suggesting that we don't pay those who contribute the most value is anathema to me...

Al-Khwarizmi
08-30-2011, 04:04 PM
Agree with the first one; it does not necessarily have to be a problem. Certainly it is good to reward people for working, or doing a better job than others. Even though the rewards are often divided wrongly.
The problem is that, despite what some neoliberals want people to think, the free market does not reward people for working or doing a better job. A liberal free market is incompatible with meritocracy.

Think about a guy from a poor family who has to work long hours every day to pay a university degree and has almost no time to study, vs. a guy from a well-off family whose parents pay for his degree so he has plenty of time to study, learn a foreign language and go to parties in his spare time. Think about a guy from a rich family who hasn't got a problem with making an unpaid internship at a top company to get some experience for his CV, vs. a guy who can't do that because he needs money for food and shelter (and probably they won't give him a paid internship when they can get the previous guy for free!). Think about a guy who has a great idea and wants to create an innovative company, but has no money so he has to go to the banks, convince them that his idea is good, get loans and risk everything for that enterprise, vs. a guy who has the same great idea but has enough money, so he just creates the company risking some of his assets but it won't be a catastrophe if things go wrong.

Come on, no one can seriously think that a system like this significantly rewards effort, merit and/or hard work. To some extent it does, but it's 10&#37; those things and 90% luck.

System with the "safety nets" that liberals despise are much more meritocratic and reward hard work more than the pure free market system. In a country with free education and some help for needy families, if I'm born very poor but I'm an intelligent, hard-working person and I want to become (say) a lawyer, I can study and become a lawyer. In countries with no government intervention on economy, I'll probably be too busy struggling for my life to think about becoming anything.