Why do leftists hate the rich and successful?

James Nguyen13 said:The reality is, they just don't have the knack for selling their own vision.

Nah, it’s not about that—it’s about the fact that Chase won't just hand over a $100 million loan to some 30-year-old kid with zero assets to his name. Period. That kid's only shot at making anything is selling his vision to a massive conglomerate like Amazon or Google just to scrape together a 1% payout. Meanwhile, you've got some entrepreneur who inherited a massive empire from his old man, and he’ll just swoop in, grab that idea, and turn it into billions while the original creator gets crumbs.

David Vaughn75 said:Nah, it’s not about that—it’s about the fact that Chase won't just hand over a $100 million loan to some 30-year-old kid with zero assets to his name. Period. That kid's only shot at making anything is selling his vision to a massive conglomerate like Amazon or Google just to scrape together a 1% payout. Meanwhile, you've got some entrepreneur who inherited a massive empire from his old man, and he’ll just swoop in, grab that idea, and turn it into billions while the original creator gets crumbs.

Childish simplification...
Of course they won't lend money to someone with no collateral to guarantee repayment. What if he spends it on himself instead of the project?
And what does it matter if the other guy inherited a company, provided he knows how to run it and generate billions?

Ryan Nelson5 said:Childish simplification...
Of course they won't lend money to someone with no collateral to guarantee repayment. What if he spends it on himself instead of the project?
And what does it matter if the other guy inherited a company, provided he knows how to run it and generate billions?

I have zero clue which part of my post you’re actually pushing back on.

James Nguyen13 said:In their actual day-to-day lives, many leftists act like staunch conservatives. They live by that old "what's mine is mine" mentality.
The idea that "your success belongs to the community" usually only applies to everyone else. It’s always "my taxes are too high," "my paycheck is too small," "gas is too pricey," or "highway tolls are a rip-off"—but somehow, it's perfectly fine to take from *him*.
I don't think I've ever met anyone actually advocating for taxing themselves.

And if you look at the non-economic side of things, you see a similar contradiction. Leftists often end up being the negation of their own values. Take the USA, for example; many of those supposedly progressive states are almost entirely white. And if someone from a different background moves into one of those neighborhoods, you'll see those same "liberals" quickly pack up and move to an exclusively white suburb.

That's a fair point.
But I guess I’ve been looking more at the people who actually get how the world works—the ones forced to play by the rules just to survive—but who still cling to that leftist utopianism as some kind of ideal.
Like, maybe they have this specific vision of equality, but they know deep down it’s impossible, so they just treat it like a daydream for when they have free time.
I don't really see anything wrong with that, I suppose.
The idea that you should take from others is true, but I wouldn't say it's strictly a leftist thing. Who actually enjoys having things taken from them? Maybe the leftist lobby complains about it the loudest, but I don't think it's right to say conservatives don't have plenty to say about it, too.

David Vaughn75 said:I have zero clue which part of my post you’re actually pushing back on.

I disagree with the implication that capitalism is just a conspiracy by the rich against the poor.

EDIT: There are systemic laws at play here. There are valid reasons why someone with zero assets can't just walk into Chase and get a million-dollar loan. The left constantly ignores these mechanics and chooses to call it a conspiracy instead.

Grace Edwards said:That's a fair point.
But I guess I’ve been looking more at the people who actually get how the world works—the ones forced to play by the rules just to survive—but who still cling to that leftist utopianism as some kind of ideal.
Like, maybe they have this specific vision of equality, but they know deep down it’s impossible, so they just treat it like a daydream for when they have free time.
I don't really see anything wrong with that, I suppose.
The idea that you should take from others is true, but I wouldn't say it's strictly a leftist thing. Who actually enjoys having things taken from them? Maybe the leftist lobby complains about it the loudest, but I don't think it's right to say conservatives don't have plenty to say about it, too.

It’s really just an escape from reality used to satisfy a sense of false morality.

Most leftists view the current economic order as fundamentally unfair, so they use leftist rhetoric as a way to soothe their own guilt.
In a way, it's how they compensate for living a totally conservative lifestyle on the other hand. It’s basically, "what’s mine is mine, and I’m keeping it."

A conservative feels the same way about not wanting things taken from them, but they aren't out there advocating for taking from others in the name of "fair redistribution." They believe everyone should manage their own affairs, and that everyone should contribute equally to shared needs.
You'll notice that none of the people pushing for wealth redistribution ever actually suggest that they themselves should be part of the group being taxed or stripped of their assets.

To put it simply, it’s just pure envy. People try to rationalize their resentment by labeling the wealthy as thieves, though they almost never bring a shred of actual evidence to the table.

And those folks who love questioning whether someone’s wealth is justified when it’s a thousand times the national average could easily just look at how much more they have compared to some poor soul living in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Curiously enough, whenever they do that, their own hands always seem perfectly clean.

David Vaughn75 said:The thing is, an entrepreneur isn't some 1,000x smarter or more gifted version of a regular worker. Even the absolute brightest human being on this planet is maybe only 2 or 3 times smarter than your average Joe.

The whole essence of capitalism isn't about "merit" or some "survival of the fittest" nonsense—that's just bad math. It's actually about meeting human needs (demand). You've got a customer who wants something, and you've got a producer stepping up to fill that gap. It works the exact same way with jobs. A manager doesn't pull in a massive paycheck because they're some kind of genetically superior superhero; they get paid that much because there's a huge market demand for a manager who actually knows what they're doing.

Honestly, those nominal figures shouldn't be your main concern—the marginal value of money drops as the volume increases. It's like how someone driving a $100,000 Mercedes isn't actually traveling ten times faster than someone in a $10,000 Ford, nor do they get ten times better news coverage from a major network like CNN just because they can afford the ads. In the same vein, someone who is 1,000 times wealthier isn't necessarily spending 1,000 times more than a worker, and their life isn't 1,000 times "better" either.

David Vaughn75 said:But here’s the kicker—those big-shot entrepreneurs and managers aren't usually the ones coming up with the genius stuff. It's the engineers. And yet, those same engineers end up fighting for nothing but crumbs while everyone else takes the lion's share.

Most of our American entrepreneurs and executives are essentially engineers anyway—pretty much everyone I know, at least, excluding the pure traders who just buy low and sell high.

David Vaughn75 said:Nah, it’s not about that—it’s about the fact that Chase won't just hand over a $100 million loan to some 30-year-old kid with zero assets to his name. Period. That kid's only shot at making anything is selling his vision to a massive conglomerate like Amazon or Google just to scrape together a 1% payout. Meanwhile, you've got some entrepreneur who inherited a massive empire from his old man, and he’ll just swoop in, grab that idea, and turn it into billions while the original creator gets crumbs.

$100 million? Seriously??? Look, I had an idea once, too—I spent my time grinding in logistics until I had enough cash in my account to actually make things happen, all without pulling any strings. You have to build something out of absolutely nothing, or close to it. If I needed a loan today, I could pull one together in twenty-four hours. I live off my "idea" now. But you? You'd need $100 million just to go out and play Ivica Todorić. Besides, you surely know how lottery winners usually end up, right?