Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

The too big to fail shit isn't part of my ideology.

The free market necessitates it.

A free market prohibits it.

Free markets do not exist in a vacuum unlike your ideology. The market is not in a permanent state. It is dynamic. It is a living process that develops as capital accumulates. A free market creates capital and capital is distributed according to who does well (free competition). As those who do well accumulate capital, they necessarily seek to preserve it by instituting methods for insuring their wealth. There are many manifestations of the method (too big to fail, threatening to move the company unless given subsidies, on and on) but the method generally speaking is turning the free market into a market that favors them. But any market that favors one over another is not a free market. Thus we clearly see the dynamic nature of a free market naturally and inevitably undermines the free market.

 

[bayoubill]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...

here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...


eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...

 

[bayoubill]

What if economic elites do something extractive with their money instead of doing something productive?

"An 'Extraction Economy is a concept from economics that refers to nation that derives most of it’s productivity from non-renewable resources, with the implication that elites are skimming a certain percentage off the top, and instead of investing that money in productive enterprises, spend it on non-productive activities instead. "

America as an Extraction Economy: Acemoglu and Robinsons's "Why Nations Fail" - * *D. Mark Key

Some elites in the US are, essentially, gambling in the global Wall Street casino with their money instead of using it to create jobs at home.

There is no such economic term as "extractive economy," or even "extractive," for that matter. It's purely a term of your invention. I think it's an attempt to paint certain industries as non-productive, as if copper an iron were just laying around on the ground in ingot form for someone to collect.

My imagination isn't good enough to be a capitalist:

Democracy and markets: More on the extractive/inclusive debate | The Economist

"Inclusive political institutions tend to support inclusive economic institutions.

"This leads to a more equal distribution of income, empowering a broad segment of society and making the political playing field even more level.

"This limits what one can achieve by usurping political power and resources the incentive to re-create extractive political institutions.

"That mechanism hasn't worked in the last 30 years.

"In contract to the 'Great Compression' from the 1940s to 1980s, economic inequality has widened sharply in the US and parts of Europe.

"So why hasn't the political playing field become more level? Acemoglu and Robinson give a hint suggesting that

"Markets can be dominated by a few firms, charging exorbitant prices and blocking the entry of mnore efficent rivals and new technologies."

your imagination in doing just fine...

but mebbe you were dropped on your head as a child...


eta: meh... my apologies about that comment...

I'm jes' tryin' to figure out how otherwise smart folks can be so fuckin' stupid regarding the subject of economics...

 

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...

here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...


eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?

 

[kaz]

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.

LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world. Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table. That is not like real life.

In real life, companies make profits. Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.

The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view. There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around." But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it. And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up. We are seeing the effects of that now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...

here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...


eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.

Confusing real life with a board game? It's no wonder why you fell for communism.

The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.

What's the net worth of the winner at the end?
Is that higher than the total net worth of all the players at the beginning? LOL!

 

[gnarlylove]

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.

LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world. Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table. That is not like real life.

In real life, companies make profits. Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.

The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view. There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around." But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it. And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up. We are seeing the effects of that now.

What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).

The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?

 

[kaz]

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.

LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world. Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table. That is not like real life.

In real life, companies make profits. Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.

The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view. There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around." But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it. And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up. We are seeing the effects of that now.

What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).

The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.

 

[dblack]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...

here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...


eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?

FWIW, the board game Monopoly, like all games, represents an ideology - one specifically and deliberately critical of capitalism. Monopoly is the game designers opinion of how capitalism works.

 

[georgephillip]

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.

LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world. Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table. That is not like real life.

In real life, companies make profits. Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.

The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view. There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around." But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it. And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up. We are seeing the effects of that now.

The logic of globalization works like Monopoly: Amass all the wealth on the board by bankrupting all other players then wait for the next round of QE and continue rolling the dice.

I'm not sure how much "value" government has destroyed lately or whether that amount exceeds the two-thirds of tax savings over the last few years that have gone to the top quintile of households, but it's clear the richest 0.1% of "earners" are happy with the $371,000 they've saved on their tax bills.

I'm less sure about how the poor feel about their $66 savings during the same time period.

Diary of a Heartland Radical: THE PAINFUL TRUTH: CAPITALISM IS A ZERO-SUM GAME

 

[gnarlylove]

LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world. Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table. That is not like real life.

In real life, companies make profits. Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.

The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view. There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around." But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it. And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up. We are seeing the effects of that now.

What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).

The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.

So you accept the rich prefer a [large and powerful] government with security, but how do you pay for security? Taxes. Taxes come from surplus. The people who are unrelated to the production of goods (i.e. police and military) must be supported by the surplus of those producing. So you don't mind taxation up to a certain point. So what constitutes the line in the sand of the right amount of taxation beyond which is too much? Does taxation for education, water utility and roads constitute excess taxation? Why or why not?

 

[georgephillip]

LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world. Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table. That is not like real life.

In real life, companies make profits. Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.

The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view. There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around." But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it. And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up. We are seeing the effects of that now.

What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).

The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.

You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.

 

[Antares]

Capitalism only creates inequality when the bottom feeders refuse to play the game.

They tend to remain inert and wait for the rest of us to pay for them.

 

[dblack]

What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).

The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.

So you accept the rich prefer a [large and powerful] government with security, but how do you pay for security? Taxes. Taxes come from surplus. The people who are unrelated to the production of goods (i.e. police and military) must be supported by the surplus of those producing. So you don't mind taxation up to a certain point. So what constitutes the line in the sand of the right amount of taxation beyond which is too much? Does taxation for education, water utility and roads constitute excess taxation? Why or why not?

Because we create government to deal with specific problems, not as a general purpose tool. Government is required to resolve disputes peacefully. The irony is that many people today want to use government as a means of getting what they want out of others, quite non-peacefully. We have a choice between government that protects us from bullies, and one that does their bidding.

 

[georgephillip]

oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...

here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...


eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?

FWIW, the board game Monopoly, like all games, represents an ideology - one specifically and deliberately critical of capitalism. Monopoly is the game designers opinion of how capitalism works.

"The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 20th century. The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as The Landlord's Game, was designed by an American, Elizabeth Magie, and first patented in 1904 but existed as early as 1902.[1]

"Magie, a follower of Henry George, originally intended The Landlord's Game to illustrate the economic consequences of Ricardo's Law of Economic rent and the Georgist concept of a single tax on land value."

Now, I guess, we have to decide if the game designers's opinion of capitalism is accurate.

History of the board game Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fishlore]

The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.

Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.

 

[dblack]

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?

FWIW, the board game Monopoly, like all games, represents an ideology - one specifically and deliberately critical of capitalism. Monopoly is the game designers opinion of how capitalism works.

"The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 20th century. The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as The Landlord's Game, was designed by an American, Elizabeth Magie, and first patented in 1904 but existed as early as 1902.[1]

"Magie, a follower of Henry George, originally intended The Landlord's Game to illustrate the economic consequences of Ricardo's Law of Economic rent and the Georgist concept of a single tax on land value."

Now, I guess, we have to decide if the game designers's opinion of capitalism is accurate.

History of the board game Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is designed as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).

The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.

You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.

In the first place, that's bullshit. In the second place, the amount of government providing protection to capitalists is about 10% of what government extracts from the country in revenue. The other 90% of government is a drain on wealth creation and capitalists.

Marxists keep trying to claim that government contributes to wealth creation, but the fact is precisely the opposite, and it's easily demonstrated.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).

The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.

You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.

Government acts as a protection racket for itself. It threatens all of us with confiscation of our property if we don't pay it the protection money it demands. The rich pay the most of all. The rich do not benefit from the existence of government.

 

[georgephillip]

FWIW, the board game Monopoly, like all games, represents an ideology - one specifically and deliberately critical of capitalism. Monopoly is the game designers opinion of how capitalism works.

"The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 20th century. The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as The Landlord's Game, was designed by an American, Elizabeth Magie, and first patented in 1904 but existed as early as 1902.[1]

"Magie, a follower of Henry George, originally intended The Landlord's Game to illustrate the economic consequences of Ricardo's Law of Economic rent and the Georgist concept of a single tax on land value."

Now, I guess, we have to decide if the game designers's opinion of capitalism is accurate.

History of the board game Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is designed as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.

Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
that doesn't lift all boats.