|
On October 20 2011 23:25 Traeon wrote:And the top 50 of these companies are banks. In other words, the world economy works to enrich banks.
I have not seen the study in full effect but it would make sense, the longer a capitalist system works, the more centralized the wealth and ressources become. Theoretically one day on entity would own everything. Normally war or revolution or crisis happen before that (but we are really coming near it nowadays).
|
Well a system without a redistribution mechanism if let to itself forever would redistribute wealth to just a small% of population and historically the reaction is for the poor to revolt and the churches to absolve everyones debt and start over. Though the means of taxes you can redistribute it and still allow people to obtain wealth but it's just harder the more you get the more you tax.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:28 semantics wrote:
Well a system without a redistribution mechanism if let to itself forever would redistribute wealth to just a small% of population and historically the reaction is for the poor to revolt and the churches to absolve everyones debt and start over. Though the means of taxes you can redistribute it and still allow people to obtain wealth but it's just harder the more you get the more you tax.
Really? Historical revolts is your example of a system without redistribution mechanisms? Here, I thought that taxes were historically the redistribution mechanism of choice of Kings to move money from the little guy to the political elite. And said revolts are uprisings directed in effort to overthrow said mechanism of redistributing wealth. So... no redistribution mechanism... sure.
But yes. That would forever redistribute wealth to just a small percentage of population. That part is good.
|
On October 21 2011 00:47 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 00:28 semantics wrote:
Well a system without a redistribution mechanism if let to itself forever would redistribute wealth to just a small% of population and historically the reaction is for the poor to revolt and the churches to absolve everyones debt and start over. Though the means of taxes you can redistribute it and still allow people to obtain wealth but it's just harder the more you get the more you tax. Really? Historical revolts is your example of a system without redistribution mechanisms? Here, I thought that taxes were historically the redistribution mechanism of choice of Kings to move money from the little guy to the political elite. And said revolts are uprisings directed in effort to overthrow said mechanism of redistributing wealth. So... no redistribution mechanism... sure. But yes. That would forever redistribute wealth to just a small percentage of population. That part is good.
Why discuss semantics? 
He seems to relate marxist theory of class-fighting to economic theory. And yes it is not proven that a free market will make unequality larger since it has never existed. However, I have never seen any serious arguments that equality should increase.
Perfect free market is like anarchism: People running around with battons stealing food from eachother and the result will of course be that the biggest group of people with battons cooperating will kill the rest and build some kind of society.
Do I need to draw parrallels between the amount of people with battons and the amount of money in a free market?
|
On October 21 2011 01:08 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 00:47 TanGeng wrote:On October 21 2011 00:28 semantics wrote:
Well a system without a redistribution mechanism if let to itself forever would redistribute wealth to just a small% of population and historically the reaction is for the poor to revolt and the churches to absolve everyones debt and start over. Though the means of taxes you can redistribute it and still allow people to obtain wealth but it's just harder the more you get the more you tax. Really? Historical revolts is your example of a system without redistribution mechanisms? Here, I thought that taxes were historically the redistribution mechanism of choice of Kings to move money from the little guy to the political elite. And said revolts are uprisings directed in effort to overthrow said mechanism of redistributing wealth. So... no redistribution mechanism... sure. But yes. That would forever redistribute wealth to just a small percentage of population. That part is good. Why discuss semantics? He seems to relate marxist theory of class-fighting to economic theory. And yes it is not proven that a free market will make unequality larger since it has never existed. However, I have never seen any serious arguments that equality should increase. Perfect free market is like anarchism: People running around with battons stealing food from eachother and the result will of course be that the biggest group of people with battons cooperating will kill the rest and build some kind of society. Do I need to draw parrallels between the amount of people with battons and the amount of money in a free market?
Lol. You really need to educate yourself about anarchy movement before saying stupid stuff like this.
|
On October 21 2011 01:15 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 01:08 radiatoren wrote:On October 21 2011 00:47 TanGeng wrote:On October 21 2011 00:28 semantics wrote:
Well a system without a redistribution mechanism if let to itself forever would redistribute wealth to just a small% of population and historically the reaction is for the poor to revolt and the churches to absolve everyones debt and start over. Though the means of taxes you can redistribute it and still allow people to obtain wealth but it's just harder the more you get the more you tax. Really? Historical revolts is your example of a system without redistribution mechanisms? Here, I thought that taxes were historically the redistribution mechanism of choice of Kings to move money from the little guy to the political elite. And said revolts are uprisings directed in effort to overthrow said mechanism of redistributing wealth. So... no redistribution mechanism... sure. But yes. That would forever redistribute wealth to just a small percentage of population. That part is good. Why discuss semantics? He seems to relate marxist theory of class-fighting to economic theory. And yes it is not proven that a free market will make unequality larger since it has never existed. However, I have never seen any serious arguments that equality should increase. Perfect free market is like anarchism: People running around with battons stealing food from eachother and the result will of course be that the biggest group of people with battons cooperating will kill the rest and build some kind of society. Do I need to draw parrallels between the amount of people with battons and the amount of money in a free market? Lol. You really need to educate yourself about anarchy movement before saying stupid stuff like this.
One could apply your comment to your own comment.
He's right of course, the examples in recent history of countries that attempted to impose the purest form of capitalism ended up with pretty extreme inequality (and economic crises) very very quickly.
Argentina in 1990 is probably the most spectacular example.
South Africa after 1994 is another really good example, although absolute GDP increased, it was marked by a huge upsurge in poverty and concentration of wealth.
Chile is a bit more nuanced, superficially you see signs that an embrace of free market capitalism led to some growth, but this was necessitated by massive crackdowns and imposed by a dictator against the vast majority of public opinion. Ethical violations aside though, Chile opened itself to extreme volatility in its embrace of capitalism and basically set the stage for its own later economic collapse. -- this is really one of the clearest patterns you see across the board-- embrace of free market/neoliberal ideas essentially removes any buffers a country has against volatility and you get an ensuing series of crises.
There are arguments that Russia's embrace of free markets-- the 1998 collapse and ensuing volatility that persists until today is certainly due to neoliberalism, and income disparity has been increasing quite rapidly.
All of these examples generally also include a gutting of public sector 'goods'-- health care, pensions, education, privatization of public assets, etc, so it's really not surprising.
I'm just surprised some people have their heads so far up ---------- that they can't see the forest for the trees. Someone should take away the neoliberal Kool-Aid.
EDIT: regarding redistribution mechanisms--- an alternative to capitalism does not necessarily require redistribution mechanisms. Historically there are numerous cultures throughout the world which did not exhibit extreme wealth disparity which did not have overt 'wealth redistribution mechanisms'. You just need to think outside the box. If you have an economy and a society that is fundamentally capitalist, and its underlying structure relies on notions of a free market, then yes, in order to achieve absolute equality, you will require some sort of redistribution. But this is just a straw man, since it is the underlying structure of society that is responsible for the disparity in the first place. An alternative structure would not require redistribution, because concentration of wealth is not a problem in the first place.
|
On October 20 2011 21:15 Suisen wrote:Look, I don't believe in the nation state. I would call myself a libertarian socialist. But the fact remains all countries industrialized because of government spending. This doesn't mean it can't theoretically happen with a free market. It just shows that in practice it just doesn't happen. The free market isn't a solution to anything besides getting as much profit as possible. And that isn't what we need. Free markets are great at what they do. They just don't do much. I agree with all the arguments and logic generally made by free market advocates. It is just that you have to impose social justice in some way. Doing that and keeping a free market free are hard to do. Free market people don't claim free markets cause social justice. They also don't care about it. It is not important for them. That's why they can advocate free markets. They just dodge the issue. I also don't believe in nation state governments that try to manage and direct economies for the sake of economic growth. I do still believe public money probably has to be used for public goals which is what will disrupt a free market. But there are many goals that would justify making the free market function less well.
How can you still say that if you agree with the article? Industrialization started in the 1800s. If it started and continued without government spending until the 20s, i don't see how you can say no country has ever industrialized without government spending. Unless we are talking about two different things. I know i'm talking about the literal industry rising. Trains, factories, steam powered mining etc.
@above poster.
I guess starving people is a side effect a pure redistribution we should ignore?
|
On October 21 2011 02:20 Stirbend wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 21:15 Suisen wrote:Look, I don't believe in the nation state. I would call myself a libertarian socialist. But the fact remains all countries industrialized because of government spending. This doesn't mean it can't theoretically happen with a free market. It just shows that in practice it just doesn't happen. The free market isn't a solution to anything besides getting as much profit as possible. And that isn't what we need. Free markets are great at what they do. They just don't do much. I agree with all the arguments and logic generally made by free market advocates. It is just that you have to impose social justice in some way. Doing that and keeping a free market free are hard to do. Free market people don't claim free markets cause social justice. They also don't care about it. It is not important for them. That's why they can advocate free markets. They just dodge the issue. I also don't believe in nation state governments that try to manage and direct economies for the sake of economic growth. I do still believe public money probably has to be used for public goals which is what will disrupt a free market. But there are many goals that would justify making the free market function less well. @above poster. I guess starving people is a side effect a pure redistribution we should ignore?
What do you mean? Be specific, I don't see how you can make this comment and still have understood my point.
There isn't a correlation between non-capitalist societies and starvation, if that's what you're trying to imply.
Unless you seem to think that all societies that aren't part of the Glowing Capitalist Western Success Story and the Rising Capitalist Powers of the rest of the world are starving backwards tribes. But that would be silly, racist, and misinformed to say the least.
|
On October 21 2011 02:30 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 02:20 Stirbend wrote:On October 20 2011 21:15 Suisen wrote:Look, I don't believe in the nation state. I would call myself a libertarian socialist. But the fact remains all countries industrialized because of government spending. This doesn't mean it can't theoretically happen with a free market. It just shows that in practice it just doesn't happen. The free market isn't a solution to anything besides getting as much profit as possible. And that isn't what we need. Free markets are great at what they do. They just don't do much. I agree with all the arguments and logic generally made by free market advocates. It is just that you have to impose social justice in some way. Doing that and keeping a free market free are hard to do. Free market people don't claim free markets cause social justice. They also don't care about it. It is not important for them. That's why they can advocate free markets. They just dodge the issue. I also don't believe in nation state governments that try to manage and direct economies for the sake of economic growth. I do still believe public money probably has to be used for public goals which is what will disrupt a free market. But there are many goals that would justify making the free market function less well. @above poster. I guess starving people is a side effect a pure redistribution we should ignore? What do you mean? Be specific, I don't see how you can make this comment and still have understood my point.
I think what i mean is pretty clear, and examples of it are clear through out history from the pilgrims to soviet russia.
|
On October 21 2011 02:34 Stirbend wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 02:30 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 02:20 Stirbend wrote:On October 20 2011 21:15 Suisen wrote:Look, I don't believe in the nation state. I would call myself a libertarian socialist. But the fact remains all countries industrialized because of government spending. This doesn't mean it can't theoretically happen with a free market. It just shows that in practice it just doesn't happen. The free market isn't a solution to anything besides getting as much profit as possible. And that isn't what we need. Free markets are great at what they do. They just don't do much. I agree with all the arguments and logic generally made by free market advocates. It is just that you have to impose social justice in some way. Doing that and keeping a free market free are hard to do. Free market people don't claim free markets cause social justice. They also don't care about it. It is not important for them. That's why they can advocate free markets. They just dodge the issue. I also don't believe in nation state governments that try to manage and direct economies for the sake of economic growth. I do still believe public money probably has to be used for public goals which is what will disrupt a free market. But there are many goals that would justify making the free market function less well. @above poster. I guess starving people is a side effect a pure redistribution we should ignore? What do you mean? Be specific, I don't see how you can make this comment and still have understood my point. I think what i mean is pretty clear, and examples of it are clear through out history from the pilgrims to soviet russia.
I don't think the term specific means what you think it means.
But I suppose the homeless, the unemployed, and the people that die from not being able to afford healthcare or eat properly, or a host of other poverty related causes in the US don't really count as counterexamples because they're lazy or something. right? They have it good, you will say. You can't even compare.
Or maybe you'll take the other route and argue, well, that's because ours isn't a perfectly capitalist society, if it were, they wouldn't be starving...
Yeah, we've heard all that before.
|
I just hate the term "wealth redistribution". As if there was something fair, natural or righteous about its initial distribution. Taxation is as much a made up game as the rest of the economic system. Taxation is no different from property laws or corporate regulations.
|
On October 21 2011 02:40 DrainX wrote:
I just hate the term "wealth redistribution". As if there was something fair, natural or righteous about its initial distribution. Taxation is as much a made up game as the rest of the economic system. Taxation is no different from property laws or corporate regulations.
I don't think people are homogenously arguing for wealth distribution, or at least, arguments against capitalism are not by default arguments for 'wealth distribution'. I think the broader issue is a fundamental reordering of society.
But wealth redistribution is better than what we have now. You can call it what you like-- all other things being equal, there is no reason in the world for some people to be starving to death across the street from people worth billions.
People can make all sorts of justifications about how having obscenely wealthy individuals is necessary, but I think that's a bullshit argument. Its a difficult problem, but not a completely intractable one. The question is what type of society do we want. The follow up question becomes, okay, so how do we go about making it.
I think though if its the feeling of the term itself, I can see why you don't like it-- 'wealth distribution' is a term generally used by people in favour of the status quo in the context of an argument against taxation or social spending-- This is no accident, the term 'wealth distribution' itself seems to imply taking money from one group of people and giving it wholesale to others. It usually occurs in a negative tone, so you're probably picking up on that connotation, rather than anything inherent about the concept itself.
But of course that's not what 'wealth distribution' really is-- wealth distribution is actually simply taxing segments of society and utilizing it for things that benefit society as a whole-- taxation can be viewed as pooled collective effort going towards things that benefit everyone.
|
On October 21 2011 02:34 Stirbend wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 02:30 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 02:20 Stirbend wrote:On October 20 2011 21:15 Suisen wrote:Look, I don't believe in the nation state. I would call myself a libertarian socialist. But the fact remains all countries industrialized because of government spending. This doesn't mean it can't theoretically happen with a free market. It just shows that in practice it just doesn't happen. The free market isn't a solution to anything besides getting as much profit as possible. And that isn't what we need. Free markets are great at what they do. They just don't do much. I agree with all the arguments and logic generally made by free market advocates. It is just that you have to impose social justice in some way. Doing that and keeping a free market free are hard to do. Free market people don't claim free markets cause social justice. They also don't care about it. It is not important for them. That's why they can advocate free markets. They just dodge the issue. I also don't believe in nation state governments that try to manage and direct economies for the sake of economic growth. I do still believe public money probably has to be used for public goals which is what will disrupt a free market. But there are many goals that would justify making the free market function less well. @above poster. I guess starving people is a side effect a pure redistribution we should ignore? What do you mean? Be specific, I don't see how you can make this comment and still have understood my point. I think what i mean is pretty clear, and examples of it are clear through out history from the pilgrims to soviet russia.
Pretty sure that the Soviet Union is the perfect example of the problem with government managed economy, no?
Large government "capitalism" is actually corporatism, which is what continuously gives Capitalism a bad name.
If the government can pick winners and losers, there will be a positive feedback effect for Corporations that engage in corruption, and unfair competition.
Which can describe what is happening in post-soviet Russia, to a large extent what a occurred in Latin America, as well as what is happening in the US to a lesser degree.
|
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and influence.
edit: pardon, I meant influence and not wealth
|
On October 21 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote:
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and wealth.
Which is why the government should be steered clear from the economy. Politicians will not be bribed by Corporations with a lot of wealth if the government is powerless in helping them compete in the market.
|
On October 21 2011 02:52 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote:
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and wealth. Which is why the government should be steered clear from the economy. Politicians will not be bribed by Corporations with a lot of wealth if the government is powerless in helping them compete in the market.
I think you have it backwards.
If you conceptualize 'government' as the collective will of society, then you arguing it should be steered clear from the economy is equivalent to you arguing that narrow private interests are the only ones which should have access to the economy.
Obviously the end result of that scenario is an even worse one than what we have now.
Currently the collective will of the people is fragmented, unfocused, severely marginalized and co-opted by private interests which enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring society, resulting in distortions, abuses, environmental destruction, poverty, etc. A better solution would be an organized means for every segment of society to regulate itself, by definition that makes the most use of human potential.
The only obstacle is organizing such a thing, but people protesting are on the right track, it starts with the collective will of society, and it starts both globally and locally at the same time.
|
On October 21 2011 02:52 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote:
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and wealth. Which is why the government should be steered clear from the economy. Politicians will not be bribed by Corporations with a lot of wealth if the government is powerless in helping them compete in the market.
And you think that market fundamentalism will lead to equality?
|
On October 21 2011 02:58 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 02:52 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote:
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and wealth. Which is why the government should be steered clear from the economy. Politicians will not be bribed by Corporations with a lot of wealth if the government is powerless in helping them compete in the market. I think you have it backwards. If you conceptualize 'government' as the collective will of society, then you arguing it should be steered clear from the economy is equivalent to you arguing that narrow private interests are the only ones which should have access to the economy.
I don't conceptualize it like that, because when you do it leads to a majority rule which tends to oppress the rights of minority without reprecussions.
I think the government is there to defend personal liberties, rights. I believe in the human rights of: speech, worship, property, pursuit of happiness (that doesn't infringe on the rights of others,) and contract rights.
Pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market is the direct result of combination of: Property rights, contract rights, and pursuit of happiness.
by having the government empower itself to be able to be involved in the free market it not only damages the productivity of the market, but it also in one way or another infringes on one of these 3 rights.
Obviously the end result of that scenario is an even worse one than what we have now.
If by even worse you state where everyone takes responsibilities for the consequences of their own actions, and are judged on the merit of their work... then yes it's much worse.
Currently the collective will of the people is fragmented, unfocused, severely marginalized and co-opted by private interests which enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring society, resulting in distortions, abuses, environmental destruction, poverty, etc. A better solution would be an organized means for every segment of society to regulate itself, by definition that makes the most use of human potential.
THE REASON that the private interests enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring the society, is that the Corporatists are in bed with the government, and the only reason they can have a mutually beneficial relationship is because, the corporatists can give the government money, and the government can legistlate in favor of the coporatists...
The only way to avoid this positive feedback resulting from corruption is to take away the government's power to legislate in favor of private interests...
You can't stop private interests from making money, but you can make sure they have to do it fairly without the big brother helping them. In the end it's true that if someone has a lot of money he can give it to whatever cause he wishes, or he could use it to run a campaign to get himself elected, which is why it's so important that the government doesn't have the power to manipulate the economy because then instead of having a fair competition that results in better quality and lower prices you have a situation where money => government control => unfair advantage => more money.
The only obstacle is organizing such a thing, but people protesting are on the right track, it starts with the collective will of society, and it starts both globally and locally at the same time.
edit:
And you think that market fundamentalism will lead to equality?
Equality of what? I don't believe that people have the right to food/wealth or anythng liek that, because those are products that other peopel create. to say that you have the right to food even fi you don't do anything implies that you have the right to something that someone else created even if you won't give anything back in return. This SEVERELY violates property rights, because who's to decide how much of someone else's stuff you're entitled to?
However, it does lead to an equality of other rights. Like everyone's property is protected, equality of legal rights, and etc.
The problem with guaranteed equality is that it's a moral hazzard. It gives you an opportunity to live at the expense of other's hard work and unless everyone is a perfect human being and naturally tries their best it's not a fair system.
Since you can't force everyone to try their best, I think it's a better idea that everyone keeps what they make, and then trade with one another either directly or via contracts in their own individual pursuits of what they want in life. This is the principle that evolves into real free market/capitalism, not what we have in America now.
|
|
|
On October 21 2011 03:15 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 02:58 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 02:52 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote:
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and wealth. Which is why the government should be steered clear from the economy. Politicians will not be bribed by Corporations with a lot of wealth if the government is powerless in helping them compete in the market. I think you have it backwards. If you conceptualize 'government' as the collective will of society, then you arguing it should be steered clear from the economy is equivalent to you arguing that narrow private interests are the only ones which should have access to the economy. I don't conceptualize it like that, because when you do it leads to a majority rule which tends to oppress the rights of minority without reprecussions. I think the government is there to defend personal liberties, rights. I believe in the human rights of: speech, worship, property, pursuit of happiness (that doesn't infringe on the rights of others,) and contract rights. Pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market is the direct result of combination of: Property rights, contract rights, and pursuit of happiness. by having the government empower itself to be able to be involved in the free market it not only damages the productivity of the market, but it also in one way or another infringes on one of these 3 rights. Show nested quote +
Obviously the end result of that scenario is an even worse one than what we have now.
If by even worse you state where everyone takes responsibilities for the consequences of their own actions, and are judged on the merit of their work... then yes it's much worse. Show nested quote +
Currently the collective will of the people is fragmented, unfocused, severely marginalized and co-opted by private interests which enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring society, resulting in distortions, abuses, environmental destruction, poverty, etc. A better solution would be an organized means for every segment of society to regulate itself, by definition that makes the most use of human potential.
THE REASON that the private interests enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring the society, is that the Corporatists are in bed with the government, and the only reason they can have a mutually beneficial relationship is because, the corporatists can give the government money, and the government can legistlate in favor of the coporatists... The only way to avoid this positive feedback resulting from corruption is to take away the government's power to legislate in favor of private interests... You can't stop private interests from making money, but you can make sure they have to do it fairly without the big brother helping them. In the end it's true that if someone has a lot of money he can give it to whatever cause he wishes, or he could use it to run a campaign to get himself elected, which is why it's so important that the government doesn't have the power to manipulate the economy because then instead of having a fair competition that results in better quality and lower prices you have a situation where money => government control => unfair advantage => more money. The only obstacle is organizing such a thing, but people protesting are on the right track, it starts with the collective will of society, and it starts both globally and locally at the same time. edit: Equality of what? I don't believe that people have the right to food/wealth or anythng liek that, because those are products that other peopel create. to say that you have the right to food even fi you don't do anything implies that you have the right to something that someone else created even if you won't give anything back in return. This SEVERELY violates property rights, because who's to decide how much of someone else's stuff you're entitled to? However, it does lead to an equality of other rights. Like everyone's property is protected, equality of legal rights, and etc. The problem with guaranteed equality is that it's a moral hazzard. It gives you an opportunity to live at the expense of other's hard work and unless everyone is a perfect human being and naturally tries their best it's not a fair system. Since you can't force everyone to try their best, I think it's a better idea that everyone keeps what they make, and then trade with one another either directly or via contracts in their own individual pursuits of what they want in life. This is the principle that evolves into real free market/capitalism, not what we have in America now.
I'm going to give you a moment to look at one of my previous posts where I pointed out that all experiments in unregulated capitalism lead to disaster, giving the specific examples of Russia, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa. Then you can respond with specific points.
I don't think that arguing generalities here is useful for either of us. Your arguments seem to rely on statements such as 'if only' x 'then' y. But this is all hypothetical.
You can't make generalized statements about human nature that not everyone would agree with, and then use those as the foundation of your argument-- nobody will agree with you, and the argument will go around in circles. This is not an ideological assertion, its simply good practice in having a discussion.
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
