Let's Debate Inequality

[Heyo]

Yet, products have become better over time...quite obviously. Everything from cars, TVs, bulbs, ACs, shoes have much better quality and efficiency than anything on offer in 1990s. Do you deny this?

I do. But I would go back further than the '90s. Planned obsolescence was already invented then.
Yes, many products have become better, mostly in accord with better technology, but some things have become less durable than they were in times when they weren't made to fail.

 

[Heyo]

Why would inequality be a problem? The only "problem" with inequality is that it can create envy by those who have less in those who have more than them.

Which, when it becomes extreme, leads to revolution. And that is what we (and most of all, the US) face now. Some inequality is inevitable and some is bearable, but rising inequality can be deadly.

 

[PureX]

Humm...... So if I understand you correctly, you are under the impression wealth is actually "captured" instead of created, and there is a limited amount of wealth out there to capture? If this is your view, how much wealth is out there to capture? 200 Trillion? A Gagillion? What's the number?

Playing stupid isn't going to get you anywhere.

There is limited food, clothing, shelter. There is limited health care, education, and career opportunity. There is limited time, energy, and resources from which we humans can generate these nevessities. And money is simply a convenient abstract representation of them that we use to trade them with other.

So the more money one manages to capture through unfair trade practices the more access to and control over all these necessities one has, and consequently, the LESS access to and control over these necessities everyone else has. Because these necessities of life are limited.

 

[Heyo]

Humm...... So if I understand you correctly, you are under the impression wealth is actually "captured" instead of created, and there is a limited amount of wealth out there to capture? If this is your view, how much wealth is out there to capture? 200 Trillion? A Gagillion? What's the number?

You have a tendency to ask for numbers that don't exist. Wealth gets created (and destroyed) constantly. So there is only a number for wealth at a given time. And there is a distribution of wealth at a given time. Any wealth the rich have captured is not available to the rest, at a given time.

 

[Augustus]

but none of those reasons is that it doesn't work for the intended purpose -

Err, that was explicitly one of my points that I repeatedly made.

Simply assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be irrational while ignoring their actual reasons isn’t a great stance.

I don’t think it would remotely create equality.

Just add a bit more randomness into the system while breaking bonds of continuity and community and turbo charging a sense of dislocation and transience.

No it wouldn’t.

If your rich daddy/mummy live long enough you get the benefits.

They have even more reason to lavish spending on private education and all other benefits.

Just a tax that ignores human psychology, would damage the economy wouldn’t create a level playing field and would be easily circumvented if you are well enough off anyway.

The economy of the proposal is less interesting than the psychology. As I have hinted at, the reactions are mostly emotional and irrational. And you are an excellent example.

On psychology, yet another great example of Michael Oakeshott’s prescient observation that the rationalist “finds it hard to believe that anyone who thinks honestly and clearly could think differently to himself”.

 

[Koldo]

You're making a claim, here, not an argument. Try defending this claim by making an argument that supports it; in the process of doing this, you may discover that this claim has issues.

What issues do you see?
Experiencing poverty, hunger, lack of shelter and access to basic necessities is directly connected to how much money people have. I can elaborate on crime and corruption later on, but let's stick to the trivial ones for now. If we take money from those that have much more than they need to have their necessities fulfilled, and give to those that don't have it, we reduce poverty, hunger, etc.

 

[PureX]

Can you show any study in psychology for this belief of yours?

First, you need to understand what socialism is.

All socialism is, is any system of government and/or commercial enterprise that gives a say within the decision-making process to the people being effected by the decisions being made.

Here is an article showing unambiguously that competition eliminates less productive firms and cause an increase in productivity for surviving firms.
Google Scholar

I have no doubt there are thousands of essays declaring how greed and competition are great for humanity. If you want to be an economics professor in this culture you damn well better be able to write those essays. And you damn well better be willing to preach the "greed is good" dogma to your students. Because if you can't or won't do that, you aren't going to be professing economics in this country for long. Or in most any other.

But the big lie of "greed is good" (for humanity) is based on slyly redefining greed as "ambition", so as to avoid having to face the predatory essence of greed. But greed is not ambition. And in fact, greed is more often than not antithetical to ambition. It's lazy, and selfish. It wants something for nothing. Greed wants the laborers to do all the work while it takes all the profits. Then it tells us all ow hard it worked at doing this, so it deserves all the profits.

And the big lie of "competition is good" (for humanity) is based on their hiding the 'goal posts' from us. They want us to believe that they're all competing to make the best products for the most reasonable prices. When in fact they aren't the least bit interested in doing that. What they want, and are competing to achieve, is to sell us the cheapest product they can get away with for the highest possible price. And they don't necessarily even want to sell more of them. They'd much rather sell 10 crappy widgets for $10 each than sell 100 crappy widgets for $1 each. Especially if the crappy widgets only cost them $.10 to make.

This idea that capitalist competition is happening in the name of our collective well-being is complete BS. Yet they've had their toadies in the colleges and news media preaching this BS for generations.

 

[PureX]

You equate "greed" to r*pe... Please drop this now.

Perhaps we are understanding greed in different contexts. I'm sure that's it, there's no way you hold such a vile view as you are making it out to be.

I recognize greed for what it is. You falsely think greed is "ambition", when it's not. So I understand that greed and rape are manifestations of the same motive.

Greed in an economic sense means self-serving.

So is rape.

Do you have a stockpile of food? Like maybe enough for a week? That's greed. Do you work a job to pay rent? That's greed.

Neither of those are expressions of greed. You are a very confused human.

 

[PureX]

Yet, products have become better over time...quite obviously. Everything from cars, TVs, bulbs, ACs, shoes have much better quality and efficiency than anything on offer in 1990s. Do you deny this?

We only make things better when doing so makes them cheaper to produce, or more expensive to purchase, or both. The point being that we only do it if it makes them more profitable. And we will do just the opposite if THAT makes them more profitable.

 

[an anarchist]

I recognize greed for what it is. You falsely think greed is "ambition", when it's not. So I understand that greed and rape are manifestations of the same motive.

So is rape.

Neither of those are expressions of greed. You are a very confused human.

You are disgustingly confused

 

[an anarchist]

I recognize greed for what it is. You falsely think greed is "ambition", when it's not. So I understand that greed and rape are manifestations of the same motive.

So is rape.

Neither of those are expressions of greed. You are a very confused human.

I am not going to bother tearing apart this disgusting post.

Out of respect for SA victims, do not equate things to r*pe, even if you think it is an apt comparison. This is not an apt comparison and is highly offensive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How exactly is taxing the rich going to help or benefit anyone aside from the government who are the only ones who are getting the money?

UBI?

You get beef priced way lower than it would be without that tax subsidy.

 

[Augustus]

Why do you choose the word "replace"? Why can't we simply expand "family" to include "community"? And consider that as goes the well being of the latter, so goes the well-being of the former

People can care about community, but the idea that favouring family over a generic “community” is “tribalism” seems wilfully obtuse to me.

 

[Nakosis]

So, you think the goal of greedy is to then be generous and altruistic? That's just silly. And even if it were true, they still don't have the right nor the wisdom necessary to wield that kind of control over the lives of others.

Depends on the person.

Of course it does, unless it all just fell in your lap, and you immediately gave most of it away.

Again, depends on the person.

No one "makes" money.

Everyone makes money, just depends on how you go about it.

Freedom is selfishness, right? Another big lie the capitalusts love to tell.

Selfishness is a character flaw of the individual. Not the economic system.

 

[PureX]

People can care about community, but the idea that favouring family over a generic “community” is “tribalism” seems wilfully obtuse to me.

Nevertheless, we humans lived in extended family clans for many thousands of years, and quite successfully. To the point where the raising of children was considered a communal responsibility. And the well being of the clan, and of the individual within the clan, were quite literally one and the same.

We can't even comprehend this way of living, now, because our minds have been so long buried under many generations of capitalist greed and competition. In an "every-man-for-himself" culture. Where every trade is an attempt at exploitation. Them or us.

 

[PureX]

Selfishness is a character flaw of the individual. Not the economic system.

The capitalist economic system enables, encourages, and rewards the flaw at every turn.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, it does. Because otherwise you would have given it away somehow. You know that are people in need all around the globe and you have much more money than what will be necessary for you to live a good life (financially speaking), why would you keep this money to yourself if not out of greed?

Because you earned it.
So it is greedy to keep what you earned but not greedy to take from someone else what they earned?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do. But I would go back further than the '90s. Planned obsolescence was already invented then.
Yes, many products have become better, mostly in accord with better technology, but some things have become less durable than they were in times when they weren't made to fail.

Yup. Better technology does not automatically make for a better product. No surprise, but things I got in childhood have lasted way longer than things acquired as an adult, including electronic devices. Or, my NES Advantave still works great and I've never opened it. Playstation controllers? I've fixed amd repaired many.
Anymore Toyotas are about the only things still made to last.

 

[Nakosis]

The economic system enables, encourages, and rewards the flaw at every turn.

In capitalism, it actually destroys the economic system. Capitalism works best when everyone's need is taken into consideration.
The market needs to remain as viable as possible for the greatest benefit to any capitalist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why would inequality be a problem? The only "problem" with inequality is that it can create envy by those who have less in those who have more than them. This isn't something we really need to worry about solving. Having less than someone else is not in itself what's harmful or destructive, and it's rather ridiculous to make a big fuss over it.

It often leads to things like theft when people aren't able to afford needs. Even Marx acknowledged Capitalism and industrialism had their purposes, and indeed we did see things improve for many among the poor. But when people go bankrupt for healtcare, work full time amd still qualify for welfare, amd are stealing and scaming as a means of survival things are wrong and must be fixed.