Economy Wealth Distribution: For The Many Or The Few?

[novaveritas]

Yes that’s correct, I’d kill u for your calling me a gamon if there was no police. Lol

jeez
gammon has 2 ms
lets not start this again, 5.45x39 says you wouldn't.

 

[novaveritas]

So we have established that you have no personal restraint, OK. That is er fine. I wouldn't kill you or your gf for calling me a liberal.
so you think that the thin veneer of civility is entriely due to state police? they are not everywhere, when you need help in seconds the police are mere minutes away.
Most people are civilised. I work on that basis. So far I must be right because I am not dead.

 

[JessFR]

Tathra, I love you man, but I find your ideas about capitalism quite misguided.

Just because we have experienced harm from unrestrained capitalism doesn't mean we should ditch it. It just means we need more controls.

The part I feel like every socialist misses. Is that in order to have a socialist system, you need a controlling establishment.

And what is an establishment? It's no different than a company. It's just another powerful actor. Only you've traded a bunch of actors fighting each other for one with absolute power.

Capitalism is not bad. It's great. It's at the heart of so much wonderful innovation. It's just uncontrolled under regulated capitalism that is so harmful.

I'd like to think that wouldn't happen. you don't need a central authority to keep people from misbehaving, all you need is a strong (coherent / strong social bonds, not militarily strong) society to keep people like that in check

I disagree. Yes, a lot of people's behavior can be controlled by social pressures, I agree with you there. But there are always people who defy the majority social norms.

 

[novaveritas]

If you look around and think what you see is capitalism you are wrong.
what you are looking at is kleptocracy or crony capitalism the end game of capitalism where some have access to the money spigot and most don't. Those that have access to the money spigot leverage this acces to extract rent from those who don't.
Crony capitalism relies on regulatory capture, it relies on corruption and it is the inevitable outcome. You can't call for more controlled capitalism because that is asking the fox to look after the hen house. Those who can manipulate it so they have access to the money spigot and then use that to buy politicians game over. people who produce things will always lose out to people who move money around, because people who produce things have to deiicate some of their time to producing things rather than gaming the system.

that in turn leads to two strategies either socialism, which is just the obverse of crony capitalism beaurocrats replacing fat cats, or small govt lassaiz faire

 

[JessFR]

Bullshit, there's lots of countries with much better controls on the negatives of capitalism.

A lot of the European countries for instance.

The same countries some people claim are socialist. But are in fact mixed model economies. Which is in many ways just another term for the constrained capitalism I'm advocating.

Specifically by constrained capitalism, I mean government protections to prevent large monopolies, unfair labor practices, anticompetitive behavior, etc. As well as a few public systems in addition to private ones where appropriate. For instance a public health care system for people who can't afford private. Australia for instance has a pretty good mixed Healthcare system with private and public providers.

It's not just theory, a lot of countries have much better constrained capitalist/mixed model systems than America does.

 

[Infernal]

Capitalism is not bad. It's great. It's at the heart of so much wonderful innovation. It's just uncontrolled under regulated capitalism that is so harmful.

Funny how this works, its not capitalism that's the cause for all the ills of capitalism but super capitalism. Frankly, that's a cop out and one I hear liberals make continously. At its heart, capitalism requires a large state apparatus that is only functional because it maintains inequitable distribution of all resources whether that's labor, resources, produced goods, financials, etc. And yet the same organization that makes capitalism functional, its supporting state can curb its worst excesses. If a system requires a state actor to maintain absolute vigilance so that its own implicit mechanism aren't guided towards economic collapse then that system, rather than its "worst excesses" is at fault.

Not only that, but by every measurable metric, capitalist countries are worse off than any other and the greatest "wealth" of these capitalist nations aren't from capitalism but from a combination of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, protectionism at their worst or at best, from social democracy measures at their best.

 

[tathra]

if there was no police I could kill youfor any reason.

you can do that anyway. if the only thing stopping you from murdering people in cold blood is the fear of being caught and held accountable, then you are one of those violent psychopaths you fear will control society without a powerful central authority

don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you for this, you get mad respect from me for having the self awareness and courage to admit this about yourself. you can't be anyone but yourself, and I sympathize with you, but most people aren't like this

Just because we have experienced harm from unrestrained capitalism doesn't mean we should ditch it. It just means we need more controls.

no matter how you go about it, capitalism requires growth to prosper, requires new markets to grow into. infinite growth is physically impossible though, so at some point you will absolutely reach a point where capitalism starts cannibalizing itself because there's no more room to grow. we may disagree on where that point lies, on where the optimal time is to transition to a system that functions and prospers under sustainability rather than growth, but that such a point exists is an immutable fact

 

[JessFR]

Infinite growth is only impossible if it's tried to deal resources. But real resources aren't the only ones that exist. Value is all imagined. Sometimes it's from a finite resource, but it doesn't have to be.

.

Not only that, but by every measurable metric, capitalist countries are worse off than any other and the greatest "wealth" of these capitalist nations aren't from capitalism but from a combination of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, protectionism at their worst or at best, from social democracy measures at their best.

Uhh, could you give me some examples of the countries better off that aren't capitalist?

 

[tathra]

Value is all imagined.

no, value is not imagined. labor has an inherent value because it's productive, materials and commodities have inherent value because things can be produced with them. things which are useful have real, objective value. money has no inherent value because it's only a placeholder for value

 

[JessFR]

no, value is not imagined. labor has an inherent value because it's productive, materials and commodities have inherent value because things can be produced with them. things which are useful have real, objective value. money has no inherent value because it's only a placeholder for value

Exactly how much value does someone's labor have? I mean in objective terms. How is it objectively determined how much of something else someone's labor is worth?

I would say the answer is that it depends. Which means it is variable based on perception.

All value is perceived. Something is worth whatever someone is willing to part with for it.

Point is though. There are many things that have value that aren't tied to a finite resource.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

hey tathra if we're going to equalize the wealth can I at least go broke partying first

because it's not like Bernie cares what I did prior to make america less wealth equal again?

trust me things are only going to get worse in our lifetime, the left can't push too hard for equality and it sucks. The libertarian attitude would be "well the civil rights act didn't even do what it was supposed to..." in before Tathra accuses me of fallacies LOVE Y'ALL

 

[tathra]

I would say the answer is that it depends. Which means it is variable based on perception.

All value is perceived. Something is worth whatever someone is willing to part with for it.

that's exactly right. a loaf of bread will be more valuable to a hungry person than a sated one, but that it has value is still indisputable. how much value something has depends on context, but that doesn't mean that value doesn't really exist

 

[JessFR]

that's exactly right. a loaf of bread will be more valuable to a hungry person than a sated one, but that it has value is still indisputable. how much value something has depends on context, but that doesn't mean that value doesn't really exist

I didn't say it didn't exist. I said all value is imagined. A better word though might be that all value is subjectively perceived.

My point is that while limitless growth tied to finite resources most certainly isn't possible. Limitless growth, in the sense of increased value, is possible.

 

[tathra]

Limitless growth, in the sense of increased value, is possible.

capitalism doesn't need value to grow, it needs markets. i suspect but can't prove that the unavailability of new markets, via artificial restrictions (stuff like monopolies and rent seeking, not regulation, regulations are necessary for capitalism to thrive) are a big part of the reason why the boom/bust cycle has always been unavoidable under capitalism

corps grow too big, capture regulatory agencies and rewrite the laws in their favor to prevent competition and extract even more wealth to do literally nothing with but hoard, until the system collapses and the markets become open and available again; rinse and repeat. everyone would be much better off under a system that doesn't consistently force itself to crash every few decades

capitalism has been a useful tool, sure, but its its not the only tool available, and has far outlived its usefulness. it's time to try a different tool, one that's better suited to the realities of the modern era and the fact that most essential tasks can be handled by automation now

not having to work to survive should be a good thing, a goal to work towards, I honestly can't understand why it isn't

 

[Infernal]

Infinite growth is only impossible if it's tried to deal resources. But real resources aren't the only ones that exist. Value is all imagined. Sometimes it's from a finite resource, but it doesn't have to be.



Uhh, could you give me some examples of the countries better off that aren't capitalist?

Let's not miss the actual conversation here, I said that the most successful countries are successful because of a history of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, and protectionism or a democratic socialist push from the populace and implied that its not capitalism that has enabled this. Capitalism rewards labor power, not productivity, not value, and not hard work. The evidence for this is that its not those jobs that are the most socially beneficial that garner the most wages but rather those industries that have the most bargaining power. This is evidenced throughout the labor history of the United States in particular and likely remains true across state boundaries. If wages were remotely equitable, the total economic output taken into mind, the average contribution to labor that each worker in America would roughly equal more than 130K a year in wages. So again, without being able to tie the success of capitalism to relative success you go back to colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc. Hell, the cornerstone of US economics is free labor historically and it is now.

Do you really think mass incarceration and involuntary servitude aren't inextricably tied in the US still to this day? With that in mind, how is that capitalism is really responsible for "all the greats." Not only that, but every check on corporate power doesn't come from capitalism, it comes labor, hard working activists, and the threat of violence or stoppages from an empowered work force.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Tathra don't you realize depopulation is the ultimate answer to human overpopulation, at which point ideology falls apart?

8 billion people, only 2 of which could be sustainable in a green-parallel universe, come on. Isn't it clear we're the problem, not the corporations/wealth inequality?

I mean, it's just plain to me.

 

[Infernal]

i suspect but can't prove that the unavailability of new markets, via artificial restrictions (stuff like monopolies and rent seeking, not regulation, regulations are necessary for capitalism to thrive) are a big part of the reason why the boom/bust cycle has always been unavoidable under capitalism

That's part of it but it comes largely from a ruthless pursuit of self-interest that underpins the market types that we participate in leading in no small part to anti-social behaviors. Endless competitive systems invariably lead to gross misapplication of resources.

 

[tathra]

Tathra don't you realize depopulation is the ultimate answer to human overpopulation, at which point ideology falls apart?

overpopulation isn't a real issue. there's more than enough produced now to support billions more, it's just held hostage and wasted by the capitalist class because they'd rather murder everyone that they cant extract profit from

 

[Captain.Heroin]

overpopulation isn't a real issue. there's more than enough produced now to support billions more, it's just held hostage and wasted by the capitalist class because they'd rather murder everyone that they cant extract profit from

YES IT IS if we can ONLY live at 2 billion SUSTAINABLE IF GREEN... that's what scientists said. Don't make me source it.

WE ARE THE PROBLEM

end game isn't living and dying by the billions... we can get this down to a reasonable (historically justifiable) number.

 

[Infernal]

overpopulation isn't a real issue. there's more than enough produced now to support billions more, it's just held hostage and wasted by the capitalist class because they'd rather murder everyone that they cant extract profit from

Yep. We live in a time where clean food and drinking water alone could be provided to everyone on the planet and yet those things that are essential to life are commodities.