Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.

You're obviously under the impression that the elite know how to run society and giving it up to the people is unthinkable.

I think it's obvious that we want the best and brightest making the most important decisions. This is a truism and usually the argument against elitism isn't that we want its opposite (the worst and dumbest running things?) but rather, how we decide who are the best and brightest are, and how to ensure they're making the important decisions.

We'll face the same problem regardless of whether we have a capitalist or a socialist economy. Someone will have to make the decisions entailed in 'running' society. Our choice is between a free-form system, where we 'elect' these people by spending our money on the things we value, or a state mandated system where we literally elect the 'deciders' through the political process. I don't see any advantage to the latter. Political decisions limit diversity and mandate consensus. I don't see it addressing any of the human value problems you cite and will be even easier for ambitious people to manipulate to their own ends.

 

[KNB]

You do know that cutting taxes for the richest people on Earth doesn't do anything for the billions of poor people all over the world, right?

Why not cut taxes for all?? You think that raising taxes for Middle Class people helps the economy as well just because you want to fund the lazy?? Think again..

What government has created basically, Increased Debt, Increased Inflation, Increased Taxation, More Dependency, and the Middle Class has been buried as a result.. The poor are living pretty good with all this redistribution of wealth and the rich aren't hurt.. Both Parties have caused all of this in the end..

Did I say anything at all about raising taxes on the middle class? I said "Cutting taxes for the richest corporations and their CEOs does absolutely nothing to help the billions of poor people all over the world."

Nothing about raising taxes on the working class.

"The poor are living pretty good with all this redistribution of wealth and the rich aren't hurt." What does that even mean? What "redistribution of wealth" are you referring to? What are you talking about? The richest 1% have made 95% of the financial gains during the economic "recovery" since 2009 and there are still high unemployment numbers across the country. This means that "trickle down" theory is BULLSHIT. There are 49 million Americans who can't afford enough to eat each week while corporations continue to rake in record profits.

We cut taxes to the upper class, giving them more disposable income with which to "trickle down", and that money is sitting in offshore tax shelters, not trickling down to anyone. So as "good" as the world's poor are living with "all" of this "redistribution of wealth" going on, the world's poor would be living A FUCK LOT BETTER if these wealthy "job creators" spent their trillions of dollars on creating jobs with higher wages and better benefits.

 

[dblack]

Yep, without government we don't have collective pursuits unless it benefits the capitalist class, which usually just centers around generating profits instead of well being.

That's just not true. Economic transactions aren't the sum total of society. We come together, without government, to deal with all kinds of problems and pursue all kinds of goals in ways that have nothing to do with turning a profit.

 

[History]

Just taxing the rich more isnt going to help, all they are gonna do is leave your country and go to another and create jobs.. They are free and they can do what they want, moving is one of them.. Unless you want all the rich to leave this country, then so be it..

 

[RKMBrown]

Just taxing the rich more isnt going to help, all they are gonna do is leave your country and go to another and create jobs.. They are free and they can do what they want, moving is one of them.. Unless you want all the rich to leave this country, then so be it..

The libtards would rather rule in hell than work in heaven.

 

[gnarlylove]

I think it's obvious that we want the best and brightest making the most important decisions.

The best and brightest people are almost never the wealthiest and most powerful, given our current society. The most powerful tend to inherit their fortunes and build upon that (while keeping the poor from having similar opportunities). The best and brightest are not corrupted by power and the influence of money because their goal is not more profit but a better society.

If we lived in a true meritocracy, one might be able to agree the best and brightest are indeed those ruling the government and private sector. But you and I both know corruption ruins authentic motivations--they focus on making themselves affluent first and foremost--and to hell with the rest for the most part.

This is a truism...

Then you shore up your reasoning by making it unfalsifiable. Nice trick. Too bad its almost entirely false. More likley we have the greediest folks running society instead of the best and brightest. And even if they were the best and brightest, with such sums of money being given to our elites, no wonder they loose focus on the public good and cease being the best and brightest.

In fact, if you are the best and brightest, woulnd't that make you immune to issues of quarterly profit over the good of humanity, what best for society? Oh our current elites tell us they know what's best but I just can't seem to believe them. You seem to. I don't want to get into the rest of your post because it hinges on this first part, which is disputable.

Here is exactly the type of corruption that I'm talking about in an excerpt from "Money, Power, and Wall St."

NARRATOR: Cathy O’Neil, a mathematician, came to Wall Street in 2007 after beginning her career in academia.

CATHY O’NEIL: I went to U.C. Berkeley as an undergrad. I went to Harvard for grad school. And then I was a post-doc for five years at MIT. And I applied to work at a hedge fund, D.E. Shaw, and I got the job. And I thought this was great.

I was a quant. A quant uses statistical methods to try to predict patterns in the market.

NARRATOR: Her work was used to predict when big pension funds would buy or sell, so the firm could jump in ahead of their trades.

CATHY O’NEIL: I just felt like I was doing something immoral. I was taking advantage of people I don’t even know whose retirements were in these funds.

We all put money into our 401(k)s. And Wall Street takes this money and just skims off, like, a certain percentage every quarter. At the very end of somebody’s career, they retire and they get some of that back. This is this person’s money, and it’s just basically going to— to Wall Street. This doesn’t seem right.

CAITLIN KLINE, Credit Suisse, 2004-10: Everybody kind of knows in their heart that something’s not right. But once you are making money for a while, you don’t ever want to stop making money.

NARRATOR: Caitlin Kline came to Wall Street in 2004. She says it was all very seductive.

CAITLIN KLINE: Your whole first summer is taken up with things like golf lessons and negotiation classes, wine tastings, things to make sure you know how to handle yourself in a business environment.

NARRATOR: Kline was a math major at New York University and considered becoming a teacher. But she remained on Wall Street for six years.

CAITLIN KLINE: You have the sneaking suspicion that you’re not contributing to society. But it was always really easy to say, “I know the risks. They know the risks. None of this is our money. So you know, we can kind of do these things, and it’s all fair game.”

It seems these genuine and educated people were being corrupted by the very nature of the system. They were indeed the best and brightest and that resulted in tons of money, not a contribution to society. I can't tell if you understand society or if you believe most of the bull shit fed through mass media...

 

[dblack]

I think it's obvious that we want the best and brightest making the most important decisions.

The best and brightest people are almost never the wealthiest and most powerful, given our current society. The most powerful tend to inherit their fortunes and build upon that (while keeping the poor from having similar opportunities). The best and brightest are not corrupted by power and the influence of money because their goal is not more profit but a better society.

If we lived in a true meritocracy, one might be able to agree the best and brightest are indeed those ruling the government and private sector. But you and I both know corruption ruins authentic motivations--they focus on making themselves affluent first and foremost--and to hell with the rest for the most part.

We're talking about the relatively narrow realm of economics, and if creating wealth isn't a measure of skill when it comes to making economic decisions, I'm not sure what else would be.

This is a truism...

Then you shore up your reasoning by making it unfalsifiable. Nice trick. Too bad its almost entirely false. More likely we have the greediest folks running society instead of the best and brightest. And even if they were the best and brightest, with such sums of money being given to our elites, no wonder they loose focus on the public good and cease being the best and brightest.

In fact, if you are the best and brightest, woulnd't that make you immune to issues of quarterly profit over the good of humanity, what best for society? Oh our current elites tell us they know what's best but I just can't seem to believe them. You seem to. I don't want to get into the rest of your post because it hinges on this first part, which is disputable.

First of all, you misread. I didn't say we have the best and brightest making the most important decisions, I said that's what we want - which I contend that, unless you're willing to disagree, is a truism (it's plenty falsifiable if you do, in fact, disagree. But I can't imagine why you would.) The problem is in figuring out who the best and brightest are. We'll never be able to do that perfectly, but I contend that the free-form system will do that better, and be more responsive to the needs of consumers, than a state mandated system ever could. Again, we're talking about the narrow realm of economic decisions. I'm not suggesting rich people should run government, or society.

Here is exactly the type of corruption that I'm talking about in an excerpt from "Money, Power, and Wall St."

NARRATOR: Cathy O’Neil, a mathematician, came to Wall Street in 2007 after beginning her career in academia.

CATHY O’NEIL: I went to U.C. Berkeley as an undergrad. I went to Harvard for grad school. And then I was a post-doc for five years at MIT. And I applied to work at a hedge fund, D.E. Shaw, and I got the job. And I thought this was great.

I was a quant. A quant uses statistical methods to try to predict patterns in the market.

NARRATOR: Her work was used to predict when big pension funds would buy or sell, so the firm could jump in ahead of their trades.

CATHY O’NEIL: I just felt like I was doing something immoral. I was taking advantage of people I don’t even know whose retirements were in these funds.

We all put money into our 401(k)s. And Wall Street takes this money and just skims off, like, a certain percentage every quarter. At the very end of somebody’s career, they retire and they get some of that back. This is this person’s money, and it’s just basically going to— to Wall Street. This doesn’t seem right.

CAITLIN KLINE, Credit Suisse, 2004-10: Everybody kind of knows in their heart that something’s not right. But once you are making money for a while, you don’t ever want to stop making money.

NARRATOR: Caitlin Kline came to Wall Street in 2004. She says it was all very seductive.

CAITLIN KLINE: Your whole first summer is taken up with things like golf lessons and negotiation classes, wine tastings, things to make sure you know how to handle yourself in a business environment.

NARRATOR: Kline was a math major at New York University and considered becoming a teacher. But she remained on Wall Street for six years.

CAITLIN KLINE: You have the sneaking suspicion that you’re not contributing to society. But it was always really easy to say, “I know the risks. They know the risks. None of this is our money. So you know, we can kind of do these things, and it’s all fair game.”

It's not uncommon for gifted scientists and mathematicians to be clueless regarding how their work impacts society.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You do know that cutting taxes for the richest people on Earth doesn't do anything for the billions of poor people all over the world, right?

No. And you don't "know" any such thing either.

You merely make the empty claim; and may believe it. But you are wrong.

If you cut the taxes of the wealthy here in the United States, the thinking is that they will have more of what they earned to INVEST. Investment leads to jobs and the production of goods and services. This is one way in wich Capitalism spreads the wealth. For with increased production, there often comes an increased demand for resources (like the stuff made or obtained from other lands and their peoples).

Are you following along yet, skippy?

So, it DOES do things -- very good things -- for the billions of poor people all over the globe.

Conversely, if we were silly enough to heed your ignorant words, the wealthy here might get taxed a bit (or a lot) more highly. They would then NOT have the money to invest and the demand for goods and services, and the resultant jobs and demand for products would fail to materialize. This would do the billions of poor all over the world not one damn bit of good.

The system is not perfect. But it need not be perfect to work. and we know it does work. World history and human progress have already proved as much, skippy. So, the alarm you are beginning to hear ringing. That's your wake up call. Snap out of your coma.

 

[History]

What people fail to realize is the Top 10% pay 70% of the US Tax Bill, and still, they want more from them..

 

[RKMBrown]

What people fail to realize is the Top 10% pay 70% of the US Tax Bill, and still, they want more from them..

Give a man a fish, instead of teaching him to fish, and he'll be back the next day yelling at you to provide him with two fish.

 

[gnarlylove]

First of all, you misread. I didn't say we have the best and brightest making the most important decisions, I said that's what we want - which I contend that, unless you're willing to disagree, is a truism (it's plenty falsifiable if you do, in fact, disagree. But I can't imagine why you would.) The problem is in figuring out who the best and brightest are. We'll never be able to do that perfectly, but I contend that the free-form system will do that better, and be more responsive to the needs of consumers, than a state mandated system ever could. Again, we're talking about the narrow realm of economic decisions. I'm not suggesting rich people should run government, or society.

It is a truism and you are right to assume I agree.

But they way you describe the operation of society relies on current consumerism. This is different than the meeting of supply and demand, which is more hypothetical. I think if we aligned supply with demand ideally it would result in no inequality. Well, at least inequality that everyone is happy with--some people are satisfied naturally with less than others. So I see you conflating ideals with how society operates or the a priori with the a posteriori

Consumerism (and Economics) asserts itself over the fact we don't only consider our own interests everytime. This is a result of the language of economics which sees people as agents who maximize their welfare, always. But we know this isn't how humanity tends to operate. We operate based on responding to our surroundings and our principles (which gets in the way of maximization of welfare, profit, whatever).

So this idea of keeping up consumerism is just a fad. At no time in history has society depended so crucially on the incessant exchange of goods. Don't you think our society ought to depend on the harmony between humanity and nature (instead of infinite consumption) for global stability?

Again, it seems you and I agree on the hypothetical scenarios. But we know these don't play out like we hope. So we need innovative technologies and policies overcoming mass human error (that results from lack of maximization) OR we need to have entrance exams into society. Those who fail the exam remain in the current system of cyclical consumption, those who pass enter the best and brightest society ever designed.

For this new society do we need 100% of policy figured out in advance? No. These things are impossible. Humans are extremely adaptive (we live in every possible oxygen-rich climate) and it's no different when it comes to cooperation and governance. I think having a general set of axioms can carry us into the applied ethics of society.

 

[gnarlylove]

You seem to have high hopes for humanity figuring out problems without interference from government. That a group of (elite) humans are capable of being responsible with entire economies. Are the elite born elite or is it purely training (or both and if so how do we determinate that)?

Until we take propaganda behind the barn and execute it, this can never be. Humans have become confused at every possible level in society due to promotion of ego and trillions spent in propaganda. A steady diet of silence and meditation will reveal this.

While I agree we should have the B&B making these decisions, I also contend that it's better for us all to become B&B instead of promoting a few humans to such an elite status. Unless of course you think B&B mostly comes from genetics. The ideas behind consensus government (unanimous cooperation) prevent elites from usurping control. Any person is capable of being corrupted and some argue its our nature to be entirely self interested. If that's the case, an elite group making national or global economic decisions will inevitably result in corruption. Corruption being defined by the fact they would make decisions based on their own profit maximization rather than a sustainable or just society. If the first group of B&B doesn't become corrupt, it's not hard to imagine corruption seeping in over the course of a few generations. Are they elected by the public or appointed via electoral college? Or by the previous elite (which enables greater levels of corruption to enter)?

 

[dblack]

You seem to have high hopes for humanity figuring out our own problems without interference from government. That a group of humans are capable of being responsible with entire economies. Until we take propaganda out back and execute it, this can never be. Humans have become confused at every possible level due to promotion of ego and propaganda.

While I agree we should have the best making these decisions, I also contend that it's better for us all to become the best and brightest instead of promoting a few humans to such an elite status. The ideas behind consensus government (unanimous) prevent elites from taking control. Any person is capable of being corrupted and some argue its our nature to be entirely self interested. If that's the case, an elite group making national or global economic decisions will eventually result in corruption. Corruption being defined by the fact they would almost inevitably make decisions based on their own profit maximization rather than a sustainable or just society. If the first group doesn't become corrupt (are they appointed like electoral college?), it's not hard to imagine corruption seeping in over the course of a few generations.

"You seem to have high hopes for humanity figuring out our own problems without interference from government. That a group of humans are capable of being responsible with entire economies."

A government IS a group of humans. And in as much as there can never be unanimous consensus government, they will always be an elite group making the decisions. But government has the power to coerce us, to use violent force if we don't agree with their agenda. Private capitalists do not.

My main thing is to keep power from becoming centralized in too few hands. We learned the hard way that merging religion and government was a bad idea, and separating them was a huge leap forward for freedom and civilized society. We're learning the same lesson now with economic power.

 

[gnarlylove]

Private capitalists have the ability to crush labor unions, which advocate safer working conditions, among other positive attributes. Are unions always good? No. But to think capitalists simply don't engage in violence and coercion is a lie. Some accuse coca-cola of murdering people in Africa, hence the term "Killer Coke." I know you won't believe them because Coke has spent trillions of dollars to shore up their image over the years. Do I believe it? I certainly believe it's a possibility, whereas you clearly think private capitalists don't wield powers like that of the government. Anyone as powerful or in control of governments will do what's necessary to maintain their status. In modern times though power has increased for the capitalists, they have also become adept at covert manipulation and legal coercion because of their B&B crackpot lawyers. Is their technically legal (and possibly illegal) coercion going to be challenged by breadwinner who needs to support his family? You can answer that one.

In fact, capitalists seems to almost inevitably imply corruption leading to forms of coercion or manipulation to get their way. Where do you stand on capitalists? Do you buy their image of charitable philanthropists or can you seem them for who they are (which includes charity but has darkness too)?

When you say you want to avoid centralized power, how do you reconcile an elite class making economic decisions? Are these elite decisions voted on or are they exempt from criticism where we submit voluntarily to them?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

gnarlylump:

There is a reason you spew your verbose blather in a series of incoherent posts without ever being able to persuade anybody of anything,

You lack logic.

 

[dblack]

When you say you want to avoid centralized power, how do you reconcile an elite class making economic decisions? Are these elite decisions voted on or are they exempt from criticism where we submit voluntarily to them?

It's not a class - everyone who earns and spends money participates in economic decisions. If we combine this with the coercive power of government it will be more concentrated, not less. In a free market, we can ignore the decisions of any capitalists we don't like. We don't have to do business with them. Merging business and government - as we're doing with ACA - takes away the right to say no. We're faced with economic decisions we're forced to follow.

 

[gnarlylove]

You lack logic.

Logic helps dispel fundamental flaws in thinking like the ones you use. Like thinking what you believe is necessarily how the world is. In other words, you can't imagine your beliefs being false.

But you can shove your claim back in your pocket Mr. Happy-Go-Lucky-Hater. I graduated with a 2 Baccalaureates. One was in Philosophy with a specialization in analytical philosophy AND LOGIC from Ohio Wesleyan. In logic 380 you don't make stupid assertions, you use deductive or inductive logic to gauge the legitimacy of claims while converting them into essentially mathematics iff p>q). The iff is not typo, I included it because I know you don't know what the hell it is--yet you pretend to know logic.

The text books in introductory logic and advanced logic alike use FOX news examples to point out flawed logic. Indeed, the first page of this introductory text points out a fallacy often found on FOX. I don't have to ask you whether you studied logic at this level because when people say dumb shit they are hiding behind their massive and phony egos. Why don't you get off somewhere else and leave the logic to those who study it.

 

[georgephillip]

Private capitalists have the ability to crush labor unions, which advocate safer working conditions, among other positive attributes. Are unions always good? No. But to think capitalists simply don't engage in violence and coercion is a lie. Some accuse coca-cola of murdering people in Africa, hence the term "Killer Coke." I know you won't believe them because Coke has spent trillions of dollars to shore up their image over the years. Do I believe it? I certainly believe it's a possibility, whereas you clearly think private capitalists don't wield powers like that of the government. Anyone as powerful or in control of governments will do what's necessary to maintain their status. In modern times though power has increased for the capitalists, they have also become adept at covert manipulation and legal coercion because of their B&B crackpot lawyers. Is their technically legal (and possibly illegal) coercion going to be challenged by breadwinner who needs to support his family? You can answer that one.

In fact, capitalists seems to almost inevitably imply corruption leading to forms of coercion or manipulation to get their way. Where do you stand on capitalists? Do you buy their image of charitable philanthropists or can you seem them for who they are (which includes charity but has darkness too)?

When you say you want to avoid centralized power, how do you reconcile an elite class making economic decisions? Are these elite decisions voted on or are they exempt from criticism where we submit voluntarily to them?

It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations:

"All centralized power carries the same pathology: those with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences.

"The president who launches an unwinnable war that chews up the nation's youth and treasure leaves office to fund-raise for his self-glorification, i.e. a presidential library.

"The CEO whose strategies fail to revive the corporation and indeed send it to the brink of insolvency leaves with a 'golden parachute' worth tens of millions of dollars.

"This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."

Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge

Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.

 

[dblack]

It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations

Seriously?

Then I'd suggest you have limited imagination. Or perhaps no knowledge of history. Consider a fascist government in action.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *
It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations: * * * *

^ precisely why nobody can take old georgie porgie seriously.