Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

Huh? I'm arguing in favor of "A" as a goal. Perfection never exists, but we have to choose are targets and aim for them. I'm in favor of maximizing our ability to co-exist voluntarily and minimizing our impulse to reach for organized violence as a way of solving problems.

Is the ideal your version of "A" or does the ideal actually take into account results? If we had A and there were problems would it still be your ideal?

Even as an ideal it comes off as very limited in scope and very naïve.

Can you be more concrete? What are you talking about? That's not a criticism, I'm speaking in abstract terms as well - but I'm not even sure we're on the same page when it comes to what "A" means. To clarify, I'm in arguing for maximizing individual freedom. That will present challenges, yes. That's what government is for.

My problem is that you presented an "ideal" that didn't take into account results. Is the ultimate goal to maximize freedom or is it maximize freedom while taking into account a lot of other things?

 

[dblack]

Is the ideal your version of "A" or does the ideal actually take into account results? If we had A and there were problems would it still be your ideal?

Even as an ideal it comes off as very limited in scope and very naïve.

Can you be more concrete? What are you talking about? That's not a criticism, I'm speaking in abstract terms as well - but I'm not even sure we're on the same page when it comes to what "A" means. To clarify, I'm in arguing for maximizing individual freedom. That will present challenges, yes. That's what government is for.

My problem is that you presented an "ideal" that didn't take into account results. Is the ultimate goal to maximize freedom or is it maximize freedom while taking into account a lot of other things?

When it comes to government, it's to maximize our freedom - including our freedom to address the 'other things' via voluntary cooperation.

 

[bripat9643]

What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.

We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.

We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!

Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right, with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.

Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.

When is conformity ever necessary?

 

[Bombur]

Can you be more concrete? What are you talking about? That's not a criticism, I'm speaking in abstract terms as well - but I'm not even sure we're on the same page when it comes to what "A" means. To clarify, I'm in arguing for maximizing individual freedom. That will present challenges, yes. That's what government is for.

My problem is that you presented an "ideal" that didn't take into account results. Is the ultimate goal to maximize freedom or is it maximize freedom while taking into account a lot of other things?

When it comes to government, it's to maximize our freedom - including our freedom to address the 'other things' via voluntary cooperation.

That is not in the nature of markets.

 

[gnarlylove]

to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?

we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.

 

[gnarlylove]

When is conformity ever necessary?

Fiat money derives its sole value from the fact that we think it holds value. Conformity is essential for markets and transactions.

 

[dblack]

to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?

Do think replacing money and individual economic freedom with state mandate would produce more, or less rigidity? Who would have the power then? And it it's not state mandate that you want to replace it with, how should economic power be distributed?

I'm not sure today's 'moderate socialists' have given much thought to how fundamental economic freedom is. If we don't have control over our personal economic decisions, over how we earn and spend our money, all other freedoms are moot. If the state controls your money, they control you. Period.

we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today).

It's not clear to me what you're assuming my 'aim' is. I don't have a fondness for 'markets'. I value freedom and non-violent cooperation. Socialist collectives can be run as a voluntary systems, and those of us who believe this is a better approach to the good life should be free to sign up. I just don't want to see such policies enacted by coercive mandates.

read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.

I'll have a look.

 

[Contumacious]

Quit the bullshit, learn a marketable skill(s) and become gainfully employed.

Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay people enough to survive, much less meet the demand requirements needed by Main Street. .

While the welfare/warfare state has destroyed numerous jobs there are still a lot of jobs out there that pay very well.

Furthermore , it is an individual's responsibility to support himself and his family - nothing prevents him/her from relocating to Zurich, Paris, London or points beyond.

Even though the welfare state politicians have convinced him that he/she does not have to move from his hometown.


.
.

 

[KevinWestern]

to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?

we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.

I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.

So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.

My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?

 

[itfitzme]

Quit the bullshit, learn a marketable skill(s) and become gainfully employed.

Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay people enough to survive, much less meet the demand requirements needed by Main Street. .

While the welfare/warfare state has destroyed numerous jobs there are still a lot of jobs out there that pay very well.

Furthermore , it is an individual's responsibility to support himself and his family - nothing prevents him/her from relocating to Zurich, Paris, London or points beyond.

Even though the welfare state politicians have convinced him that he/she does not have to move from his hometown.


.
.

The links you provided do nothing to support your claims.

No one doubts that the world economy is below the leve it was in 2000.

But nothing in those links demonstrates it is because of the "welfare state".

An national economy is a precarious thing. For producers to higher workers they need demand. For there to be demand, people need to have jobs. For people to have jobs, producers need to higher them.

On top of that, in a monetary based economy, there must be a physical supply of money. If businesses and consumers all start paying down debt, the money supply dissapears.

It takes time for the economy to grow and a moment for it to crash.

And the growth rate is dependent upon, among other things, that people have the skills to match the jobs that will produce the products that have potential demand.

 

[ilia25]

Yada, yada, yada. Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.

Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.

No, they obviously don't work. According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment. You can't have both. There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.

That is correct.

However, during the recession of 1982 we had both high unemployment and high interest rates.

High interest rates (set by central bank) do not mean high inflation. In 1982 the inflation was dropping like a stone (google "disinfaltion"), and that was goal was being achieved trough high unemployment.

Inflation reached double digits at the end of 70s (blue line). To bring it down Fed sharply raised interest rates (green line). That caused a recession, raised unemployment, and as result, inflation started to drop. When Fed decided that the economy has suffered enough, it dropped the interest rates and the economy recovered quickly.

That event didn't contradict Keynes at all.

Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.

No, they haven't. What they have had is high natural rate of unemployment (google NAIRU), i.e. the rate that can't be lowered w/o rising inflation. That thing varies between societies.

 

[itfitzme]

I was looking at The Economist this morning. It was for a week in December, if my recollection serves me. The GDP growth for China compared to the developed economies was trememdous.

Numerous economic indicators point to China entering the global market in 1998-2000 as being the single turning point that lead to today's anemic economy.

The problem, I believe, is simply absolute advantage as the standard of living for China's workforce is so much lower that the developed countries. What has been going on is that while China's standard of living increases, the developed economies standard of living necessarily decreases. It isn't going to change until they meet somewhere in the middle.

There are certainly other independent issues that are occurring. That absolute advantage issue is a big one.

 

[itfitzme]

The unemployment vs inflation is the Phillips Curve.

It is an outcome of the money supply. Economic growth is best when the money supply increases with it. Prices are sticky upward and a decreasing supply doesn't work well. Output is also dependent on labor utilization which needs to have matching skill sets.

So, GDP = MV = PQ. Q is clearly a labor dependent function.

So, if M rises faster than Q can keep up then P, prices, have to make up the difference.

That is the ceterus paribus condition.

The proportion of that relationship then gets affected by all sorts of things. Rate of efficiency changes and the labor supply are two obvious ones.

 

[dblack]

to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?

we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.

I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.

So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.

My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?

I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

#1 problem is Big Money in politics. Each Congress member is suggested to fundraise 5 hours a day. Granted their work-week is 3 days usually, they have to talk to people with money. And most people with money want more money and that means vote Republican. But what it really mean with all this money is the public interest, the public good looses to private interests almost everytime. If you made a deal to receive a cool 200,000 dollar contribution from a coal company, by-god they expect you to honor that money and vote coal every change you get. Now there is many loopholes that makes no requirements of such voting but we'd have to be blind to not see it happening. Take gun legislation and 80% of the public approved it but it wouldn't pass. Why? NRA is good at what they do. Why? Money and power. Another example of the crafty NRA is in last years recall election in Colorado where Democrats lost seats despite public opinion favoring the Democrats on this issue.

That is the #1 issue ruining democracy and turning our America into "the Rich's America" aka PLUTOCRACY!!! Top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth including assets.

Solution?
Public financing of elections plain and simple. Also repealing Citizen's United and striking down McCutheon V. Alabama, a case loosening campaign contributions.

Without this how can our government serve the constitution which clearly notes the people give the power and that all people are equal. "Money as a form of speech" is terminating equality out in the open! The representatives are more concerned about staying in office and their personal opinions. The pubic is a vehicle to stay elected but the public has much less to do with their decision making than it should. Their decision making should be to 100% represent the voices of their constituency. We lost this ideal long ago though. The Zapatistas have got it right.

#1 problem is Big Money in politics.

#1 problem is Big Government controls so much of the economy that it is worthwhile donating money to these assholes. Shrink government by 80% and we could ignore the clowns in DC.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You realize you are saying humans are not equal. They should be stuck in class systems to rank their worth.

I think if all humans were given similar opportunities, encouragement, love and security that we would expect to see the most productive society. But by your logic its good like it is. That must mean you have never had to decide between food or electric. Without ever having been homeless (or at least camped for extended periods) you can never know what you really value in the same way if you don't know any short people, you can't know any tall people either. Having wealth requires having not ha wealth to fully understand what your wealth means. I doubt you have a clue about what your wealth means other than it sustains your life.

Your low sample set (you are the only sample) says very little for how society should operate. Our meritocracy is really absurd which is the idea that people earn where they deserve to be in society, whether at the bottom or the top--everyone gravitates to their natural worth. Want to know why?
Alain de Botton: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success

You realize you are saying humans are not equal.

Of course they aren't. Duh.

 

[gnarlylove]

Do think replacing money and individual economic freedom with state mandate would produce more, or less rigidity?

No I'm not saying that we should therefore chuck money. But if you think money is just another way for us to be equal, that's only true on an idealist level. Given the money is used as speech, those with less of it naturally have less speech. The way this plays out leads to greater inequality.

Can money produce less inequality? Yes and it did for much of the 20th century. I don't deny it does today on a case by case basis but don't go hiding your eyes to the fact that money is a tool and is used to control. This control is not their right to exercise but it's done anyway for whatever justification you want to slapdash on there.

I'm not sure today's 'moderate socialists' have given much thought to how fundamental economic freedom is. If we don't have control over our personal economic decisions, over how we earn and spend our money, all other freedoms are moot. If the state controls your money, they control you. Period.

I do not support state sponsored socialism as the halmark of equality or economic freedom. But to think economic freedom leads to greater freedom is a bit convulated and can indeed be more restrictive than liberating. If you want to make this claim again, please first visit this TED talk I have referred to many times.

As for the rest I was not clear on your aim either and am so use to people just ignoring or denying one another that you naturally expect it. I apologize if I came off more aggressive or misconstruing your position. I appreciate the frank discussion and am starving. Ta-ta

 

[gnarlylove]

to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?

we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.

I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.

So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.

My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?

Really appreciate your honesty. I think Noam Chomsky really addresses this well in his book On Anarchism. Maybe you can read page 31 on google books or something. That's one of the pages he addresses your exact question.

However, our best bet is to work within the system and outside it whenever we can.

Within it we can establish the policies that could lead to an essentially equal world with a divison of labor. Humans are highly inventive and can solve problems when attuned unlike today. That's because like I said the foundations for the next society have always been in the roots of the previous one. So our ideal of a better society is rooted in how well we operate this one.

As far as the new system, Marx got a heck of a lot right. What happened was his theories were applied under conditions of the state which still favored private gain over public good. We will never find our "utopia" in a meritocracy like the world has today. They can be romanticized but the fact remains they are instruments of maintain the master/slave dialectic and control. Of course the courts are a great equalizer, so we tell ourselves, but they too are riddled with racism and favoritism. I am well aware by virtue of having many first hand encounters in the court room. Money is favored no matter the crime. White is favored no matter the crime. Does this play out every time in overt ways? Not necessarily but as long as we ignore hope and a claim to liberty for all, we remain in the "savage" state of nature of chiefdoms on infinitely larger scales with prime ministers and the rich elite.

Personally I would love to see the crumbling of all world systems. However, this would quickly cause widespread suffering and those with wealth and power would in all likelihood gobble up all the valuable resources so that we would be back where we started at best but likely worse off. So it's conflicting but anarchy is not the just chaos. Again, I refer you to Chomsky's delightful book that gives a good history of this necessary challenge to authority for the good of humanity. Indeed, it stands for our inherent right to liberty and love and life etc etc. and resists challenges to these rights at any turn.

I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.

Unfortunately they are not. See Businessweek to see the details of how wealth is naturally advantaged and is cornering the market.

 

[gnarlylove]

You realize you are saying humans are not equal.

Of course they aren't. Duh.

I bet you are anal retentive to what the consitituion says about your right to bear arms.

But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. Hmmm.

Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. and their job is to ensure our drinking water is safe. If we stopped these employees along with Park Rangers etc. we would see what enables the public good to be on the agenda is the fact these agencies exist. I'm not saying every policy of each agency is right but they are the vehicle through which our interests are represented...like for clean water, like safe drugs and foods, inspections into terrorism to "keep us safe." So you think it would champion the public good to rid America of these services? Man that's whack. It would mean that there would be no regulators and private ventures would be unrestricted.

The first thing to go would be clean water given all the dumpage and pollution that would ensue. But you don't think degrading the environment effects you so I can see why you'd ignore these concerns for a stupid ideology that says small to minimal government is the best route in all situations. Given private pursuits, I'm glad we have some restrictions on what we can and can't do so that it benefits us all.

 

[P@triot]

The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?

Darn! The losing team should be paid!
Wait a moment! They ARE paid!

So is every employed person in the U.S. - even the minimum wage workers - dumb ass... :lol;