Let's Debate Inequality

[sayak83]

BLM failed? Are you kidding me? They made millions off of that movement; they got rich! IMO it was a racist movement that should not have been taken seriously in the first place….. but that’s a different topic. My point was that it is one of many examples of power not being concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.

It failed in its justified objectives on large scale police reforms. Another example on how rich special interests create negative publicity and pressure to thwart public movements.

 

[Koldo]

Uh……no.

Then why is it that being a capitalist country is not indicative of it's economical development but having a history of being either a capitalist/imperialist nation or being massively supported by one is?

 

[PureX]

Yes, in a completely different environment where people have reciprocal personal relationships that are key to survival people will behave differently.

In a modern urban setting, these personal bonds do not exist. Modern communication and transportation technology and any modern economy make them impossible to recreate.

We can’t put the genie back in the bottle and return to a simpler past, and we can’t replicate such communities at mass scale.

Scale changes all things, and makes many things impossible.

I’m a pretty nostalgic person, but it’s a form of escapism as the “pain” comes from the fact these things will always remain part of a long distant past, and not our present or future.

So basically the capitalist's excuse is that we just can't do better. Greed and stupidity are now inevitable. So we must just accept it.

But of course we can do better and we should. Because capitalism is going to destroy us sooner or later. Simply because it's inhumane and anti-social. It's literally a form of self-destructive insanity, as evidenced by the fact that we are willing to destroy each other's lives, and the only place in the universe that we can actually survive, in the name of deliberate and willful greed and stupidity.

 

[PureX]

Are you gonna answer my question?

I just did. The whole "the rich create wealth" is a big fat lie.

Or keep dodging. You made a claim about wealth claiming it is not limitless, and it is captured rather than created. Your claim was about WEALTH, not food, clothes, shelter, money, or all that other stuff you trying to bring into the picture, that does have a limit. Now are you gonna answer my question? Or are you gonna keep dodging.

 

[PureX]

Oh, I can well comprehend that way of living. Just look at the tribal clans of Afganistan, the countless examples of honor killing and caste violence in South Asia etc etc. A person calling back humanity to live in communal clans has no idea as to how bad it is to live like that. Living in North Korea is more favorable than that option. Thank you.

Oh my! The catastrophizing! It's capitalist greed and stupidity or it's certain torture and death by murderous despots!

 

[PureX]

Holding government accountable is “ignoring reality”? Please.

You can't hold them accountable when the oligarch's bribery means more to them than you do.

You think greed and corruption is unique to capitalism? It exists, to some extent, in all economic systems currently. But capitalism provides the best opportunities to improve one’s situation.

Of course it does. And in every instance they go hand in hand.

And it wasn’t technological advancement, it was capitalism.

No, it was technical advancement. All the capitalists did was exploit it for their own gain.

Technological advancement occurred with every advanced country, but it’s the capitalists who lifted people up the most.

Greed, and the fear it generates in everyone pushes people to rush into enterprises without considering the consequences. And we have been paying the price for all this folly ever since. Technology was opening doors to possibilities that our greed and fear made us rush headlong into without thinking it through. And now we are suffering the consequences.

The technical advances were fine, it was the greed and the blind stupidity that greed engenders that were not. The capitalists turned new technology into a kind of toxic social, environmental, and economic/political poison ... that may well end up killing us all.

 

[PureX]

In capitalism, it actually destroys the economic system. Capitalism works best when everyone's need is taken into consideration.

But that is NOT the goal of capitalism. Nor is that goal rewarded by capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to reward wealth with more wealth by giving the capital investor total control over any commercial enterprise he's invested his wealth in.

The market needs to remain as viable as possible for the greatest benefit to any capitalist.

Capitalism is parasitic because greed is insatiable. The capitalists will destroy the economy they exploit the same way a parasite will devour the host that sustains it. Don't believe me? Just look at what they are willing to do to the planet that we all need to survive. When it dies, they will die, too. And still they will continue to poison it for the sake of their greed.

Capitalism, and the greed and ignorance that it engenders is literally a terminal mental illness.

 

[wellwisher]

I disagree with you. Wealth is self accumulating. The more you have, the easier it is to make more. And negative wealth is also similar. More debt you have, easier it is to get into more debt. This creates inequality, suffering and concentration of power, nobe of which is good. So the government must redistribute wealth at significant levels, so that all people can have a reasonable life and a recurring chance of accumulating wealth even after setbacks.

The government need not be involved at all actually. We can have an automated wealth distribution procedure based on inflation adjusted income from all sources. If it goes below a certain level, you get paid from the taxation pool.

The irony is the current US government has the worse debt, ever. Based on your logic this has created the worse inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good. They have more power, today, and there are more rich today. For example, credit card debt is at an all time high, due to Government causing inflation, due to adding more Government the debt by borrowing, and due to interfering in the free market; regulate fossil fuels, creating a wide spread supplemental need to borrow with credit cards. Government created inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good.

The free market is more self pruning. If a free market entity was to get that deep into debt, they would lose credit and be forced to restructure or go away. The dead wood would be gone; either way. But we cannot get rid of this current dead wood, until after the election. Even then The dead wood of power will fight change, with power. Something more efficient has to come in.

The student loan crisis, where huge debt is now carried by many young people, was created by Government interference. This created inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good. If we had let the free market decide, the talent pool and college space would decide student number and costs. Government opened the valve of unlimited debt so anyone could go. Supply of students exceeded demand so tuition costs rose, multiplying that student debt. This creates inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good.

The Government was also involved in the housing crisis in 2008, due to allowing unsecured loans (debt) to people the free market would not have given loans to. This created an excessive demand for housing, prices go up, until the bubble burst and hardship was due to the negative rate of return; bankruptcy. This created inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good.

Politician have power, but power does not translate directly to money without some form of corruption or manipulation of power for money. Power has to suck up to money, to get their share of money, via campaign donations and future golden parachutes. The Obamas have become rich based on donations and golden parachutes, all on a Civil Servant pay. But that was done by greasing the palms of the rich, with breaches of power. The rich can pay power to get richer, and power gets a cut.

During Obama and Biden they and the DNC changed the business tax code which made it cheaper for business to go over seas. This meant lost jobs in America, which means personal debt accumulated; rust belt. This created inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good.

Government does not get as much credit/blame for all disasters it creates and deserves. If a company raises prices, I can shop elsewhere to avoid debt. But when the Government creates a self serving blunder; student debt, there is no other place to go to avoid the boneheads. Their impact is that of a monopoly of power/money and supply. The suffering they can create can become enveloping. That one blunder by the DNC created $1.7trillion in student debt, creating inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good. The smaller the Government the less their blunders and robbery can propagate and harm everyone. In terms of student debt, the colleges who got all that money, were not required to give some back, since they paid to be above the law with donations.

If the iPhone was to get too expensive for someone, the free market has layers of price points, so there is still a place to shop to find a phone. It may not be your heart's desire, but it can serve your needs, with less debt to avoid the inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good. But Government, like student loan tampering, made it hard to shop, since their interference had a universal effect, thereby even need, with the conscious and frugal shopper, can lead to debt. We should be able to sue politicians for bonehead law that cause debt and hardship. We can take it from their ill gotten gains, due to their misuse of power that created that debt.

 

[sayak83]

Oh my! The catastrophizing! It's capitalist greed and stupidity or it's certain torture and death by murderous despots!

Reality is reality. Older tribal communal societies were extremely oppressive, much more than anything today. Sorry to puncture your fantasy about older ways of living.

 

[Nakosis]

But that is NOT the goal of capitalism. Nor is that goal rewarded by capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to reward wealth with more wealth by giving the capital investor total control over any commercial enterprise he's invested his wealth in.

Capitalism is parasitic because greed is insatiable. The capitalists will destroy the economy they exploit the same way a parasite will devour the host that sustains it. Don't believe me? Just look at what they are willing to do to the planet that we all need to survive. When it dies, they will die, too. And still they will continue to poison it for the sake of their greed.

Capitalism, and the greed and ignorance that it engenders is literally a terminal mental illness.

None of that is true. Unfortunately, you've learned about capitalism from some weird ideology.

So the "capitalism" you talk about is not the same as I'm referring to.

 

[Nakosis]

Why not? And why would it apply if I didn't steal it?

Because theft is not part of capitalism.

Anything explains why anyone has any right.

Ok, then it seems we agree.

I am not talking about compassion though.

Then why would you give your money away to help anyone?

 

[wellwisher]

Too many people, when discussing the market place, never take into account the role of Government in the economy. It tries to argues like we have a free market based on greed, looking at the final results, that appear unequal, assuming the free market made all those poor choices. That is not reality. We are a highly regulated market, with all that Government regulation interfering with the free market, creating inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good. Let us reason economics and include all the players.

If we apply free market principles, we would cut off the credit line for the Government, until they restructure, since no free market entity can show such poor job performance, and keep getting infusions of debt capital. That is not the free market. It is a strong arm market based on power and money. If we had just a money based economy, all businesses will invest where the money is, which adds up to the demand. This makes the consumer the top dog in the food chain. This amounts to a variety of price points, for similar products, from prime to select beef or from eco-cars to Rolls Royces. If you are not able to get what you want, you can still get what you need and afford, since there is money there and a place to invest When you start adding Government these choice get narrowed and will harm all the people at the margins of demand.

Once you get power involved, making self serving deals, money will leverage power and bypass the dominance of demand. For example everyone is being forced to buy electric cars, with no choice to buy a cheaper used gas car in a few years. This creates debt, which creates inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good. Electric cars, benefited the rich. Those who could afford got a tax break was well as free electric charging, while the poor pays higher gas prices, based on Government interference in oil supply, adding to their credit card debt, that then creates inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good. That policy increase the number of poor people and people with debt, but not by free market forces.

The Biden and Harris Administration is textbook example of government causing inequality, suffering and concentration of power, none of which is good. One should not use emotional thinking and ignore reality in favor of a quest for power to make it worse.

There are many people on the forums who can reason and talk good science, but when politics appears, their reason is thrown out the window and blinders are put on. We cannot solve the economic suffering unless we deal with the main source of problems; power. Using fake news to lie and cover for Harris, who is not an economic expert, is not going to end the suffering of the consumer. Harris was trained as a lawyer who never ran a business. Her skill set, although useful, is not what is needed if the goal less suffering by less debt and less concentration of power, all of which is good.

I would not hire Trump to do brain surgery on me, just because I like him. His strength is the money side and the free market, as well as knowing the game of power, since he was a donor for decades and even the President. he knows what can harm the free market. We need to deregulate the power plays designed for money that harm the free market, but retain the regulation that serves the common good; adds value.

 

[Augustus]

So basically the capitalist's excuse is that we just can't do better. Greed and stupidity are now inevitable. So we must just accept it.

But of course we can do better and we should. Because capitalism is going to destroy us sooner or later. Simply because it's inhumane and anti-social. It's literally a form of self-destructive insanity, as evidenced by the fact that we are willing to destroy each other's lives, and the only place in the universe that we can actually survive, in the name of deliberate and willful greed and stupidity.

It’s not like the pre-capitalist world was full of altruistic kindness and enlightened humanism.

Humans collectively have always been violent and rapacious, including those who lived in the “extensive family clans” you are praising. They were generally more violent.

Modern technology and the growth in population size just means it now happens on a different scale.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a rational and enlightened humanity to appear, we are just animals after all not divinely created beings.

 

[wellwisher]

Because theft is not part of capitalism.



Ok, then it seems we agree.



Then why would you give your money away to help anyone?

Government is the worse problem. Let me give an example, social media companies have become like giant monopolies, that are worth billions. It makes people sort of jealous. In the 2020 election, the US Government used power to strong arm all these monopolies, to form a giant mega monopoly to censor the Trump campaign and the Hunter Biden Lap top story. By its own laws, monopoly is evil according to Government, unless they do it to a worse level. If all those companies decided to united, to form a mega influence, there would be hell to pay, since it violate monopoly standards. Government is the free market cancer, since it makes the laws to serve itself, even if it causes harm, such as the current economy. Government needs Chemo.

Student debt was caused by government interference in education, allowing too much debt that drive uo demand and costs. That was recipe for failure. It was a time bomb. That bonehead move by Government, in the free market, has caused suffering for millions, with the stroke of a pen. That debt makes it hard to move out of a hole.

The rust belt and all the lost factory jobs was caused by Government regulation that made it cheaper to go over seas; millions of more victims. Opening the southern border is causing over crowding in schools, which impacts the education of citizens; 10 of millions more victims. This is staring local resources; citizen get less or pay more taxes for more debt.

If Goverment does boneheads things that come back to harm the citizens at these levels, all involved need to be fired. Harris should be fired, if the pain and suffering due to tampering is important. As long as you reward those who cause pain, the pain expands.

 

[anotherneil]

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.

You're basically both generalizing and cherry picking.

Not everyone who cannot afford needs resorts to theft and scams; some of them beg for money, some of them accept their fate and resort to a life of homelessness, and some of them just allow themselves to drop dead.

There are those who can afford their needs who still resort to theft and scams, anyways.

We have existing solutions for mitigating and preventing theft and scams, without having to resort to making everyone have equal wealth and possessions.

Even if we did try to force everyone to have equal wealth and possessions, that still wouldn't stop theft and scams; for all we know it would probably only cause theft and scams to increase by orders of magnitude.

One of the solutions for mitigating and preventing theft and scams is to have laws and law enforcement; for all we know, in a society where everyone has equal wealth and possessions, far fewer individuals than now would be willing to step forward and volunteer to put their life at risk to fight crime by joining law enforcement agencies. We would probably effectively wind up with anarchism - everyone for themselves to keep themselves from being victims of theft and scams.

Some people are bigger and stronger than others, meaning they'll be able to outmuscle and strong arm the weaker folks and take their stuff. That's what the elementary school bully does in the playground when they're taking lunch money from the weaker children, and we'd be living in a society that's more like such an elementary school playground; the only difference is that this would be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year (366 on leap years) instead of 15 minutes during a school day; it would also be for more than just lunch money too.

We do have problems in society, but we need to identify which problems are real problems that need to be solved because they're destructive to people and consequently to society, and which ones are not really problems because they only lead to envy. Envy can serve to motivate and inspire others to better themselves, which in turn is better for society. A society with better people is a better society. We like challenges, and an envious individual may often have the desire to challenge the wealthier older brother or sister or neighbor by working harder, studying, whatever to get a promotion, or start their own business, or invent something like a better mousetrap.

I've even noticed that people like the challenge of collecting and bringing the most food (canned food drives) for helping those who need food or are homeless, etc. We're willing to help out of our own pockets if we're challenged to it, but that challenge is voluntary and accepted willingly by such individuals.

Let's suppose someone started a thread to challenge forum members to post images of receipts showing purchases of food and either receipts or statements of where the food was donated, we'd probably see quite a few posts on such a thread. I would be interested to see the ratio of members of each side of the political spectrum, and would expect it to corroborate the information in the abstract of this NIH paper: Are conservatives more charitable than liberals in the U.S.? A meta-analysis of political ideology and charitable giving - PubMed

Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level, but the relationship between political ideology and charitable giving varies under different scenarios.

We also need to apply real, sound solutions, to real problems, solutions that have been tested, vetted, and don't trade one problem for another problem, or create an even bigger problem.

One example of a solution is to stop inflation of the circulating money supply, and in order to do this we need to go back to using only money that's backed by gold, silver, etc. With this private central banking fractional reserve system we have now, of course we're going to have people who work full time on welfare.

The problem which you describe as going bankrupt for healthcare is slightly more complicated to identify and describe, but if it is what I think it is, then the solution is not very difficult. To explain what I suspect it is (here in the US), we have to go back to WW2; that's when health insurance offered by employers became a thing. It started because the government imposed temporary wage freezes to try to impede workers from leaving jobs in war machine factories for better offers, and businesses who needed employees got around wage freezes by offering to pay for healthcare costs: The Real Reason the U.S. Has Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance (Published 2017) (or https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/6ya4bb ).


Then the IRS declared health insurance paycheck contributions as non-taxable (both income and payroll), which probably practically drove the non-employer provided health insurance plans companies out of business (it would be difficult to compete with the situation), and practically creating a monopoly by virtue of employees only having the one insurance company that employers had agreements with. Employees are going to take it, because it's going to be the better financial deal/situation.

It's not just the virtual monopolization of the health insurance industry alone that's causing expenses to spiral out of control, it's the overhead involved (from both government regulations and staff needed by insurance companies as well as healthcare providers to deal with health insurance constraints) I suspect is orders of magnitude far more costly than the skyrocketing cost of health insurance from practical monopolization alone.

I have worked in the healthcare industry for over a quarter of a century, in a non-clinical role (IT). When I started, it was small not-for-profit hospitals that started to acquire private physician practices (and other healthcare service related entities); these hospitals then got absorbed by large healthcare organizations; IT departments and staff tend to be absorbed as "corporate" employees and facilities (IT departments tend to get centralized, as opposed to be under the local organizational structure and budget department). I am now a state employee, because the hospital I work at is now part of a public university.

As a healthcare organization employee working in IT for over a quarter of a century, I probably have quite a bit of insight on the situation. I think that the reason private physician practices wind up getting absorbed by larger healthcare industry organizations is because the overhead from insurance has been getting more expensive and has been eating into their profits and forcing them to increase what they charge & bill their patients for.

By merging with a larger healthcare organization, which already has the staff and infrastructure to deal with that overhead; there's basically a mutual incentive for the two to combine, because the expense offset to the larger healthcare organization to support these smaller entities is probably very small, maybe even negligible.

It basically eliminates redundancy for private physician practices & other smaller healthcare entities. They're probably sources of revenue that more than make up for the expense.

Part of that infrastructure is IT systems (software and hardware) and staff, and those are a huge part of the expenses of a healthcare entity. I'd guess that at least 3 quarters of the cost of an IT department is to bill patients (and I'm probably being very conservative with 3 quarters - I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was more than 99%).

The solution to the current healthcare financial problem would be to peel back all these laws and regulations that keep getting piled on healthcare services and patients, all the way back to what was implemented since WW2 as a result of employers going through this loophole of offering part of the compensation in the form of healthcare insurance.

Would we - all of humanity - be happier if we all (no exceptions) had nothing and owned nothing, and had to spend our entire day scouring for food, hunting and gathering - and maybe going hungry and eating nothing before we go to sleep at night because we didn't find anything during the day? Would you be happy having to sleep outdoors and having to find a dry place if it rains or try to figure out how to keep warm on a cool night? This is how undomesticated animals have to live, and this is the alternative to not having and owning things, including having a job to be able to at least be able to buy some food. I think we both agree that such a way of life would not make use very happy & it's that capitalism and industrialism that keeps us from having to live like undomesticated animals.

 

[Koldo]

Because theft is not part of capitalism.

What does something being a part (or not) of capitalism has to do with the concept of earning some stuff?

Ok, then it seems we agree.

I don't think so. I am saying that you are using an arbitrary justification to evoke the existence of a right.

Then why would you give your money away to help anyone?

I am not talking about giving my money away to help people. I am talking about taxation.

 

[PureX]

None of that is true. Unfortunately, you've learned about capitalism from some weird ideology.

So the "capitalism" you talk about is not the same as I'm referring to.

No, it's not. You have drunk the capitalist coolaid and so now you think it's some sort automatically self-correcting "free" market system. When in fact it seeks to trap us all in a monopoly so it can exploit everyone and everything for all it can get. It abhors "fair trade" and seeks to maximize exploitation, instead.

 

[PureX]

It’s not like the pre-capitalist world was full of altruistic kindness and enlightened humanism.

Humans collectively have always been violent and rapacious, including those who lived in the “extensive family clans” you are praising. They were generally more violent.

Modern technology and the growth in population size just means it now happens on a different scale.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a rational and enlightened humanity to appear, we are just animals after all not divinely created beings.

Capitalists loathe humanity; sees it as the enemy of self-interest. And considers self-interest above all else.

Thus, it is toxic to humanity.

 

[anotherneil]

What issues do you see?

One issue I see is that you're making an assertion but not showing anything to support your assertion; you're not presenting an argument, only a claim or conclusion without premises.

Tell me what your premises are and how you can arrive at this assertion from those premises; that's what I'm asking you for.

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.

You're just essentially rephrasing the same assertion, not really adding anything.

When I was in college working on my engineering degree, I took courses in mechanics statics and dynamics. In these courses, students learn that statics analysis works for systems of bodies where there is no change in their mechanical motion. Some of the analysis methods for dynamics (where there is change in the mechanical motion of a system of bodies) are not needed in statics, because there's less involved. If you analyze a dynamic system of bodies using only static analysis, then you'll encounter a problem.

A simple way to think of this is if you were to take a still photo of a car on a stretch of flat, level street. This car might be moving or it might be stopped, but you essentially won't be able to tell from a still photo. You can if you do something like dangle a small weight from a string attached to this car; you'll be able to tell whether or not it's moving, and if it is moving, you can tell which direction it's moving in.

This is analogous to what you're doing. You're presenting an assertion based on something analogous to a "static" assessment but not a "dynamic" assessment. You're dealing with a situation that's analogous to being "dynamic", by which I mean that you're not taking into account what happens over time, including past and future.

In the short run, you'll be able to take money from wealthier people and give it to others, and they'll be able to use that money to buy food for the next day or week or so; then what happens? Do a thought experiment to explore what will happen next week, next month, next year, etc. I'll do a limited amount of hand-holding, but this is it; you need to figure out the answer for yourself, or at least try. If you at least try but give up, I'll explain, but for now I want you to try to figure this out on your own.

 

[PureX]

One issue I see is that you're making an assertion but not showing anything to support your assertion; you're not presenting an argument, only a claim or conclusion without premises.

Tell me what your premises are and how you can arrive at this assertion from those premises; that's what I'm asking you for.


You're just essentially rephrasing the same assertion, not really adding anything.

When I was in college working on my engineering degree, I took courses in mechanics statics and dynamics. In these courses, students learn that statics analysis works for systems of bodies where there is no change in their mechanical motion. Some of the analysis methods for dynamics (where there is change in the mechanical motion of a system of bodies) are not needed in statics, because there's less involved. If you analyze a dynamic system of bodies using only static analysis, then you'll encounter a problem.

A simple way to think of this is if you were to take a still photo of a car on a stretch of flat, level street. This car might be moving or it might be stopped, but you essentially won't be able to tell from a still photo. You can if you do something like dangle a small weight from a string attached to this car; you'll be able to tell whether or not it's moving, and if it is moving, you can tell which direction it's moving in.

This is analogous to what you're doing. You're presenting an assertion based on something analogous to a "static" assessment but not a "dynamic" assessment. You're dealing with a situation that's analogous to being "dynamic", by which I mean that you're not taking into account what happens over time, including past and future.

In the short run, you'll be able to take money from wealthier people and give it to others, and they'll be able to use that money to buy food for the next day or week or so; then what happens? Do a thought experiment to explore what will happen next week, next month, next year, etc. I'll do a limited amount of hand-holding, but this is it; you need to figure out the answer for yourself, or at least try. If you at least try but give up, I'll explain, but for now I want you to try to figure this out on your own.

So we don't just give the money to people to buy food, clothing and shelter. We use it to pay them to do things that improve the quality of life for everyone. To build and update infrastructure. To build housing in a shortage. To grow food in a shortage. To mitigate disaster damage. To do all the things that we need the government to make sure we do for the collective well-being.