Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

"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.

How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

America's founders had strong opinions on class interest, as well:

"An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a 1913 book by American historian Charles A. Beard. It argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers.

"More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a 'cohesive elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially bonds) and economic standing."

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

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.

America's founders had strong opinions on class interest, as well:

"An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a 1913 book by American historian Charles A. Beard. It argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers.

"More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a 'cohesive elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially bonds) and economic standing."

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That sounds more like a commie interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.

The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.

The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.

Meaningless babble.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.

The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.

Meaningless babble.

That's what he does best.

 

[gnarlylove]

THOMA Piketty notes an important mechanism contributing to the rising inequality.

The mechanism works "on the excess on the rate of return on capital with the rate of growth for the economy to siphon income to the very top part of the income distribution. So far as I know, nobody had fastened on that before...it's not some kind of market failure of a capitalist economy. It's a mechanism that's there..."

The rate of return on capital averages between 4-5%, larger parcels can be 6%. The rate of growth in the economy varies, 0-3.5%. So these rates contribute to the dynamic wealth accumulation of individuals who have capital leaving those who "only have their labor" behind. These numbers range from over 20 countries and centuries as far as reliable data exists. One can expect the rate of growth to remain steady for the global economy around 3% but in America we can expect lower. The rate of return on capital can change but as wealth concentrates, we can expect policy to reflect the interests of high returns on capital.

Piketty has described how we got to the point where 95% of income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%. But in the foreseeable future we can expect these trends to continue.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?

Scarcity is your answer. All economists teach you we live in a world of scarcity. The world is not infinite. If I take 100 jelly beans, that leaves a portion of the original to be divided among the rest. So my consumption has reduced the total jelly beans. My pursuit of self has led to fewer for everyone else. You can make more jelly beans. But you can't make more land and oil unless your model expects to colonize Mars and new planets. I don't think that's reasonable to expect.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.

The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.

Meaningless babble.

Then why did you waste your time replying? Taking you at your word, you have nothing else to say except meaningless babble.

 

[bripat9643]

In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.

The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.

Meaningless babble.

Then why did you waste your time replying? Taking you at your word, you have nothing else to say except meaningless babble.

You expend a lot of bandwidth saying almost nothing. What you do say is idiotic. Only a fool believes that the size of government has no impact on how it functions. Furthermore, even a child understands that less of something bad is better than more of something bad. Apparently you dispute such this indisputable fact.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?

Income has been redistributed over the past four decades from wage labor to corporate profits and investments in IT.
That is making a few rich at the expense of millions of workers.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

America's founders had strong opinions on class interest, as well:

"An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a 1913 book by American historian Charles A. Beard. It argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers.

"More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a 'cohesive elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially bonds) and economic standing."

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That sounds more like a commie interpretation of the Constitution.

"Beard pointed out, for example, that George Washington was the wealthiest landowner in the country, and had provided significant funding towards the Revolution. Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded."

You sound like a bond holder.

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

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.

How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?

Income has been redistributed over the past four decades from wage labor to corporate profits and investments in IT.
That is making a few rich at the expense of millions of workers.

"Labor Income As a Share of Total Income" - this doesn't answer the question. It speaks only to relative income. I'm asking you how someone else having more than you makes you poorer. And the fact of the matter is, unless they are stealing it from you (which, admittedly, does happen), someone else's good fortune doesn't imply your loss.

 

[georgephillip]

How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?

Income has been redistributed over the past four decades from wage labor to corporate profits and investments in IT.
That is making a few rich at the expense of millions of workers.

"Labor Income As a Share of Total Income" - this doesn't answer the question. It speaks only to relative income. I'm asking you how someone else having more than you makes you poorer. And the fact of the matter is, unless they are stealing it from you (which, admittedly, does happen), someone else's good fortune doesn't imply your loss.

If it's true those at the very top of wealth distribution usually have the most income, and their income gains over the past forty years have come largely from redistributing middle class jobs to China, the few who have become rich over that time period did so by making millions of productive workers poorer.

 

[gnarlylove]

Meaningless babble.

Then why did you waste your time replying? Taking you at your word, you have nothing else to say except meaningless babble.

You expend a lot of bandwidth saying almost nothing. What you do say is idiotic. Only a fool believes that the size of government has no impact on how it functions. Furthermore, even a child understands that less of something bad is better than more of something bad. Apparently you dispute such this indisputable fact.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for your beliefs as objective truth. But if you wish to actually have objective beliefs, you cannot define objective truth as your belief. We have all kinds of beliefs that are not objective or founded in reason; our psychology works by grafting beliefs with your core beliefs already in place. This means truth is a secondary consideration of beliefs--the primary consideration is how it fits with other beliefs, opinions and assumptions.

But surely you don't think every single opinion, assumption and belief you have are facts of objective reality? So you need to be willing to stop being hostile to new and strange views in order to determine the validity of your beliefs. If you don't care to check the validity of your beliefs by listening to criticism, then who are you to say "what you say is stupid?" That statement becomes a hollow and uninformed opinion if you don't care to validate your beliefs through discussion and criticism.

Again, I respect the tenacity you possess and extreme confidence but there are a lot smarter people than you (or me) and some happen to agree while others strongly disagree with you (and me). So don't you think it's worth hearing respectfully the arguments from others? Please let me know.

 

[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.

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

You can work wealth envy into any post, can't you Georgie?

That there is any comparison between the ... game ... of Monopoly and real life doesn't mean they are the same in every way. As I already explained, Companies make profits, they aren't just moving money around. They are creating value. No value is created in Monopoly. Money is just moved around.

Capitalism is not your, let's say "forte" is it there big guy?

 

[kaz]

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.

what constitutes the line in the sand of the right amount of taxation beyond which is too much?

Government is the worst solution to any problem, therefore it should logically be used when it is the only solution to a problem.

Government is the only solution to military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. 90% of government should be doing those functions.

On the other hand wealth redistribution is simply plunder and is no more moral than a criminal holding you up in a back alley.

Does taxation for education, water utility and roads constitute excess taxation? Why or why not?

Again, you pick things that even a libertarian supports. Though I would do education far differently. Your argument goes that if any government can be justified, all government can be justified. No, it can't.

 

[kaz]

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.

Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value. It's like if you buy an insurance policy. It costs money, it makes you poorer. However, you spend it to protect what you have. I support those functions.

Tax and spending destroy value and having nothing to do with protecting anything. Government creates nothing, it just spends. And that destroys value since the money it spends comes out of the economy from productive businesses.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value. It's like if you buy an insurance policy. It costs money, it makes you poorer. However, you spend it to protect what you have. I support those functions.

Tax and spending destroy value and having nothing to do with protecting anything. Government creates nothing, it just spends. And that destroys value since the money it spends comes out of the economy from productive businesses.

FDR used taxation and spending to create the Tennessee Valley Authority; do you approve?

"Even by Depression standards, the Tennessee Valley was economically dismal in 1933.

"Thirty percent of the population was affected by malaria, and the average income was only $639 per year, with some families surviving on as little as $100 per year.[citation needed]

"Much of the land had been farmed too hard for too long, eroding and depleting the soil.

"Crop yields had fallen along with farm incomes.

"The best timber had been cut, with another 10% of forests being burnt each year.[citation needed]

"TVA was designed to modernize the region, using experts and electricity to combat human and economic problems."

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?

 

[dnsmith35]

All men might be created equal in the eyes of the law. Genetically, tho? LMFAO

In the eyes of God! Every other equality only exists based on disability or not at all. Those who are not disabled only have he opportunity to excel based on their own recognizance! There are no guarantees in this life other than motivation, ambition work. If a person is capable of work, it is their obligation to make the most out of life. Short term assistance in certain times of economic difficulty only!