# John Mace's (and others') opinion about societal fairness, 99%, etc **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 6, 2011, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215 "2011-12-06T01:44:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/161 "2011-12-07T19:43:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Who claimed you were? Taking out a loan is a risk. Student loans are no different. And _this_ is where we lose track of the original topic. I was responding to the USA having the best system. When you have to take a very large, very serious risk (with increasingly poor payout) to get a higher education in the states, but very little risk, comparatively, to go to a college which is damn near as good in Germany or a similar country, can you still claim that the American system is better? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/162 "2011-12-07T19:44:19Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Well, I certainly agree that democracy in general makes things BETTER, but I think you’re still saying things that are somewhat tangential to my question… That is, is it the case that as long as there is basically democracy and basically capitalism, then things are by definition fair. So if I say to you “hey, look at society X… 98% of its population works in minimum wage jobs, and thus their children have to start working right after high school at crappy jobs to help support the family, and thus can’t attend trade schools or colleges to learn skills to better themselves, so it’s incredibly rare for their kids to end up making more than their parents and improving themselves” is your response “that’s f\*\*\*ed up man” or is “well, do they have free elections and free markets? because if they do, then it’s a fair and just society, end of story.”? I’ve answered your question twice. Yes, it is possible to have a society that is basically capitalist and democratic and still be poor or unbalanced or whatever term you want to use. Yes, that is possible. No, I would not say that such a society cannot be improved. Therefore…? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swords_to_Plowshares)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/163 "2011-12-07T19:56:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Who claimed you were? Taking out a loan is a risk. Student loans are no different. > > In capitalism, if you take a risk and it pays off, you are rewarded. If it doesn’t, you are penalized. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature. > > If you take out a large loan and major in film studies or sociology (or comp sci) and find out when you graduate that you can’t get a job in your major, sux to be you. Your risk didn’t pay off. If the government steps in and pays off your loans, then there is that much less motivation to major in something that people will pay you to do instead of something fun. Like film studies. > > Regards, > Shodan Are 17/18 year olds capable of making sound risk/reward decisions, especially when they’ve been convinced by parents/guidance counselors/peers that taking out student loans to major in psych is a good decision? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/164 "2011-12-07T20:08:56Z")
> [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](#): > > Are 17/18 year olds capable of making sound risk/reward decisions, especially when they’ve been convinced by parents/guidance counselors/peers that taking out student loans to major in psych is a good decision? Should adults be responsible for their own decisions? Of course not. The government will assign you your major, based on what they expect will be the fields needing workers. Upon graduation, you will be assigned to the city where you will work and the position you will fill. You will continue to work there, until you are told where to move next to fill a different job. Resistance is futile - you will be employed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swords_to_Plowshares)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/165 "2011-12-07T20:21:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Should adults be responsible for their own decisions? Of course not. > > The government will assign you your major, based on what they expect will be the fields needing workers. Upon graduation, you will be assigned to the city where you will work and the position you will fill. You will continue to work there, until you are told where to move next to fill a different job. > > Resistance is futile - you will be employed. > > Regards, > Shodan I obviously wasn’t saying that adults/the government should make the decisions for them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/166 "2011-12-07T20:23:35Z")
> [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](#): > > I obviously wasn’t saying that adults/the government should make the decisions for them. What were you saying? If you are saying we should forgive the debt, I hope you are at least also saying we should not allow such debt to accrue in the future lest we have to repeat the forgiveness of further bad debt. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/167 "2011-12-07T20:46:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Should adults be responsible for their own decisions? Of course not. > > The government will assign you your major, based on what they expect will be the fields needing workers. Upon graduation, you will be assigned to the city where you will work and the position you will fill. You will continue to work there, until you are told where to move next to fill a different job. > > Resistance is futile - you will be employed. > > Regards, > Shodan I think we should send them all to Excluded Middle College, where they can learn logical fallacies. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/168 "2011-12-07T20:53:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Evil Captor** : Yes, I agree (and I’ve said this many times on this MB) that Libertarians grossly overestimate the degree to which personal liberty is the primary/sole motivating desire of people. It’s a system whose basic premise does not mesh with observable facts. Another misunderstanding Libertarians have is their belief that the right of property trumps every other right (except maybe the right to self-defense). They figure every conflict can be resolved by determining who owns the property involved and deciding in that party’s favor. And they believe everyone will agree that this is the right decision. But many non-Libertarians feel that other rights like, for example, the right to free speech or right to assemble or right of free movement are at least as important (and in some cases more important) than the right to property. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/169 "2011-12-07T20:57:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > An MBA is a graduate program, so I think you may be confusing things. But according to this article ( year old, but probably still correct) business degrees are the 2nd most popular for undergrads: > [Link.](http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/10/27/cb.what.major.pays/index.html) > > Second only to Biology and Biotech. (I would never have guessed that!) > These guys aren’t MBAs. The link I posted above says salaries start at about $57K. A business degree is a very general degree and can lead you into any number of fields, not the least of which is starting your own business. > > I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that kids expect $100K right out of college. If they do, they need a lesson that the market will be more than happy to teach them, post haste. So, we are done, then, discussing the value of higher education and the access to it, what with the GI Bill, and all that? Would that be conceding my point, or hoping I will allow you to ignore it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/170 "2011-12-07T21:03:42Z")
See post #148 on the previous page. ---
**Author:** ![Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swords_to_Plowshares)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/171 "2011-12-07T21:06:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What were you saying? > > If you are saying we should forgive the debt, I hope you are at least also saying we should not allow such debt to accrue in the future lest we have to repeat the forgiveness of further bad debt. First of all, I want to address one of my main problems with libertarian philosophy: it has little protection for victims of coercion and deception. It’s a “fool me once, shame on me” mentality - if you’re convinced when you’re in high school in 2006 that you can go to college, go in to debt, and it’s okay because you’ll have a job when you get out (and the statistics indicate you will), and then the economy goes down the shitter… that’s harsh. Especially when a libertarian comes along and tells you your situation is all your fault because you took a bad risk and made a terrible life decision. Now who should step in and solve this? You seem to think I think it has to be the government. I think the government could be a major part of the solution, but not the whole solution. Problems: ballooning education costs (and thus student loans), high unemployment among young people Underlying causes: greater demand for college (brought on by the decline of blue-collar jobs in America and the glorification of college and white-collar jobs by parents and educators), the recession which caused unemployment and hiring freezes Potential solutions for current problems: This is the tough one. Increase forbearance (with a freeze on accruing interest) until unemployed grad gets a job, hiring tax credits targeted at hiring new grads. Lower interest rates on student debt (Wells Fargo did this voluntarily) Potential ways to prevent this from happening in the future: reduce education costs (possibly by a shift toward vocational/trade schools coupled with infrastructure spending), increased regulations on student loans (which are basically a racket), increase federal loan programs, prevent the economy from getting fucked up again by Wall Street and anyone else with the potential to fuck it up through human error Not potential solutions: forbidding students from picking “useless” majors, means-testing for college loans ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/172 "2011-12-07T21:11:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > See post #148 on the previous page. No, I didn’t, and have no idea why not. Your points are well taken. Now you can blush. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/173 "2011-12-07T21:15:08Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > My other claim, which I agree is so-far unsupported, is that there is less social mobility now than there was 40 years ago, in other words, it’s harder for a poor kid now to succeed, compared to how hard it is for a rich or middle class kid to succeed, than it was 40 years ago. I’m trying to find data to support or disprove this, so far I haven’t found anything that really addresses that precise claim one way or the other. > > [This article](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html), for instance, has some interesting data, but it’s talking about much more recent, short term, trends (ie, changes between 1997-98 and 2003-2004). > > Or we might find [this paper](http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr10-716.pdf), whose thesis is “Using historical census data and survey data, Ferrie and Long (forthcoming) found a significant decline in social mobility in the United States from 1880 to 1973. We present three critiques of the Ferrie-Long study”. Again, kind of related, but not really what I’m looking for. > > So if anyone else can dig up a useful cite, I’m eager to see it. > [@](#): > > You’re conflating two things I said. I didn’t claim that things today in the real world were “sufficiently large”, I asked if other people could imagine a situation in which they were sufficiently large that the situation would be bad/unacceptable/unfair/unbalanced. In other words, we clearly have some level of it’s-harder-for-poor-kids-to-succeed-than-rich-kids in the US today. We’ve always had some level. It’s hard to imagine a society without some of it other than an illusory Marxist utopia. But it’s also clear that even within basically capitalistic societies, there could be more or less of it. And my question is, do you agree that if the level of it is sufficiently high, that is a bad thing, something that society as a whole ought to be using its resources to fight against? Ah you are right, I misread it initially. My apologies for the misread, it was not intentional. In regards to your question, I am not sure at the moment I would consider the a sufficiently large difference in opporutnity to be unfair or unbalanced. I suppose I’d need to at least understand what exactly we mean by the phrase “difference in opportunity.” If I knew what at least this involved, I’d probably be in a better position to answer your question. If, however, we are merely discussing a numerical value, such as person X has more opportunities than person Y, then I likely do not agree. I think more would have to be taken into consideration, such as how those opportunity differences came into existence, but I do not think a mere difference in numbers renders it unfair or unbalanced. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/174 "2011-12-07T21:28:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There is this meme out there that the CEO/worker pay ratio of 40 years ago or so is somehow correct and the ratio today is not. At a fundamental level, regardless of any ideology, I would question why we should assume that. > > Secondly, I don’t necessarily see that if CEOs made less, workers would make more. And that’s the real problem-- that workers think they should be making more. Let’s say we capped CEO pay at $2M/year. How would that make your average worker’s pay go up? > > Thirdly, there is the issue of fairness and capitalism. I think we can all agree that capitalism is not an ethical or moral system, and ideas of fairness are simply not relevant. It’s certainly relevant in the realm of public policy, but not in capitalism. I am not so concerned about the CEO of SP500 making a lot of money and sure they are making more money compared front line workers than they used to but American wages have been depressed by foreign labor in a way that foreign CEO compensation has not. I am concerned with teh WAY our CEOs get paid, They are being paid in a way that encourages gaming stock prices, taking really big risks and lying about how much money the company made. > [@](#): > > I can think of one area right off the bat, and that’s the loophole that allows hedge fund managers to treat what is essentially salary income as if it were capital gains. Still, that would just make these guys super rich instead of super-duper rich, and I don’t know that it would put one penny in the pocket of your typical middle class working stiff. We’d have more money for social programs to help the poor, but that wouldn’t affect the CEO wealth gap that seem so to be such a hot button. The treatment of carried interest is a glaring case of inequity but after Chuck Schumer’s donors told him to shut up about it, it hasn’t gone anywhere. > [@](#): > > As a libertarian-leaning guy, my gut reaction to claims of our democracy being undermined by rich people and corporations is that it’s a natural result of giving so much power to the government in the first place. We should have simple tax codes that aren’t subject to thousands of loopholes that rich people can lobby for and use. We should use our tax code for one and one purpose only-- raise the money necessary to run the government. Treat all income the same, and let the market determine the best way to allocate resources. Don’t encourage home ownership over rentals-- let people decide, depending on market conditions, what makes most sense for them. And don’t set up a situation where we rush to bail out huge banks and corporations when they teeter on the edge of failure. If that means re-instituting something like Glass-Steagal simply because we know we can’t do that, then so be it. As much as I don’t like government meddling in business, I absolutely detest the government picking winners and losers whether that is preferential tax breaks or deciding which industries get Uncle Sam to come to the rescue when they fuck up. > > That’s my first take on a response to the OP. Hope that was helpful. On taxes, we will never keep any system simple. On bailouts, they will occur so it is better to regulate and collect insurance premiums on teh front end rather than on the back end. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > IMHO, an agreement made between two consenting adults, neither of whom is under duress, is a fairly sacrosanct thing. Two people have expressed their will and have decided to do something that they are both happy with. A third person needs some mighty powerful justification to come in and fuck with that (e.g., that the first two people have decided to kill someone). So assymetrical information doesn’t bother you? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are corporate executive salaries really subject to market forces? > > As a hypothetical, maybe the situation is that corporate executive boards have created a closed system that isolates them from market forces and this is what’s causing the rise in salaries. I think there is at least some evidence of this. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > But back to a point I made in my first post, I think we would be better served by a tax system that did not try and reward certain behaviors over others, as that is almost certainly going to end up being corrupted by the wealthy people who are inevitable in a free society and who have more access to the legislative system. Fix the tax code by making it simple, and don’t allow it to be corrupted by the baser aspects of human nature. That was the motivating factor of the Founders in creating separation of powers. Unless you set up the system so it’s difficult to corrupt, it’s going be corrupted. We are not angels anymore than we are innate Libertarian maniacs. You want to stop congress from making a simple tax system complicated? First you would have to simplify the real world and then get congressmen to not screw with the tax code once you have is simplified. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/175 "2011-12-07T21:36:08Z")
> [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](#): > > First of all, I want to address one of my main problems with libertarian philosophy: it has little protection for victims of coercion and deception. Wrong. > [@](#): > > It’s a “fool me once, shame on me” mentality - if you’re convinced when you’re in high school in 2006 that you can go to college, go in to debt, and it’s okay because you’ll have a job when you get out (and the statistics indicate you will), and then the economy goes down the shitter… that’s harsh. Especially when a libertarian comes along and tells you your situation is all your fault because you took a bad risk and made a terrible life decision. Well, you posited that the student had access to the most important adult advice he can get-- that of his parents and his school councilors. I also think it’s a fallacy that there are all these adults out there telling kids they will be guaranteed a job if they go to college. Any kid who thinks otherwise is an idiot, and doesn’t have some mean old adult to blame for thinking that. > [@](#): > > Now who should step in and solve this? You seem to think I think it has to be the government. I think the government could be a major part of the solution, but not the whole solution. I don’t know what you think. That’s why I asked. > [@](#): > > Problems: ballooning education costs (and thus student loans), high unemployment among young people > Underlying causes: greater demand for college (brought on by the decline of blue-collar jobs in America and the glorification of college and white-collar jobs by parents and educators), the recession which caused unemployment and hiring freezes > Potential solutions for current problems: This is the tough one. Increase forbearance (with a freeze on accruing interest) until unemployed grad gets a job, hiring tax credits targeted at hiring new grads. Lower interest rates on student debt (Wells Fargo did this voluntarily) I don’t see how those actually solve the problem other than shifting the burden onto someone else. Banks aren’t going to take a hit without trying to make up for it with other fees or costs put on other customers. And is there any evidence that a short-term tax cut for new college grads is going to do anything but undercut the ability of “old” college grads to compete in the job market? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/176 "2011-12-07T21:50:33Z")
Just because something is “the best” does not mean it’s “perfect.” ---
**Author:** ![Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swords_to_Plowshares)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/177 "2011-12-07T21:54:47Z")
John Mace, are you familiar with [The Market for Lemons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons)? Are lemon laws a good thing? They protect consumers from information asymmetry. Or is that burdensome regulation? Some college educations have essentially become lemons. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/178 "2011-12-07T22:05:22Z")
> [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](#): > > John Mace, are you familiar with [The Market for Lemons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons)? Are lemon laws a good thing? They protect consumers from information asymmetry. Or is that burdensome regulation? > > Some college educations have essentially become lemons. I wouldn’t quite go that far. But I will say that a bubble phenomenon that was seen in recent years in tech stocks and real estate might be happening now to higher education. In these situations, where even in a crash you might need an education or a home to live in, the best response is to keep your own investment conservative, your debt manageable, and your expectations reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/179 "2011-12-07T22:10:41Z")
> [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](#): > > John Mace, are you familiar with [The Market for Lemons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons)? Are lemon laws a good thing? They protect consumers from information asymmetry. Or is that burdensome regulation? > > Some college educations have essentially become lemons. Except that college education doesn’t meet the first criteria for such lemon markets: > [@](#): > > Asymmetry of information, in which no buyers can accurately assess the value of a product through examination before sale is made and all sellers can more accurately assess the value of a product prior to sale. And, even if it were a lemon market, lemon laws as applied to colleges would make the college refund money for a bad education. It would not hold the lender responsible. Is that what you want? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215/180 "2011-12-07T22:11:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I’ve answered your question twice. > > Yes, it is possible to have a society that is basically capitalist and democratic and still be poor or unbalanced or whatever term you want to use. Yes, that is possible. No, I would not say that such a society cannot be improved. > > Therefore…? Therefore, you would presumably not respond to OWS protesters by simply saying “hey, we have capitalism and democracy, things must be fair by definition”. Which is what the original point of this thread was. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-maces-and-others-opinion-about-societal-fairness-99-etc/605215.md?page=10)