Let's Debate Inequality

[Koldo]

And this is why wealth is subjective, @Koldo . My employers values the food I cook more than the money they give me, and I value the money they offer more than my time it takes to cook the food. So it’s a win win because wealth is subjective therefore it being limited is a logical impossibility.

It is not subjective. If your employer is correct, and your work is worth more than what they pay you, they will make a profit (let's exclude other factors just to simplify this). If they are wrong, they will lose money. This is objective.

 

[Koldo]

I view government as a parasite on an economy that would naturally and spontaneously exist absent of a government system or State of any kind. Perhaps this is the thread for elaborating on this.

Feel free to elaborate.

 

[an anarchist]

The literal fruits of your labor have value, and you are nearly always being paid less than that when you sell your work for wages (although sometimes more). Thus why it doesn't make sense to say that wages are equivalent to the fruit of one's labor.

When I am a dishwasher, I wash dishes.

With that job, I can pay rent, buy food, pay electricity, buy luxuries, and go out.

I’d say it’s a sweet and fair deal.

Thus, why it makes plenty of sense for me to deny that I am enslaved. When I work, I thrive.

 

[Kfox]

How do you measure wealth?

Financial wealth is based on the dollar amount your assets are worth minus debt.

 

[an anarchist]

Feel free to elaborate.

Well, do we agree that an economy would exist absent of a State?

I am sure we disagree on whether or not the State is an unnatural parasite on the economy, but I want to see if we agree on the premise of the economy being separate from the State. If you disagree with that, then we can start there.

 

[Kfox]

This argument can go all the way down to argue against intellectual property. (As a proper anarchist, I am against the concept of intellectual property).

I can elaborate but this is more of a tangent and not relevant to the OP.

If you don't mind, go ahead and elaborate; I'm curious about your perception on this issue.

 

[an anarchist]

If you don't mind, go ahead and elaborate; I'm curious about your perception on this issue.

IP stifles innovation and the market. Let’s say I was the first fella to make a car. Then I patent it and no one else can make a car. This denies people the opportunity to use my design more efficiently and offer it for cheaper. How can one own an idea? If someone uses their own resources to make their own cars, how can I be mad? Because I figured out how to do it first does not give me the claim to the worlds resources, because that is what intellectual property implies. If I own a patent, I am dictating what others can do with their own resources.

 

[Koldo]

When I am a dishwasher, I wash dishes.

With that job, I can pay rent, buy food, pay electricity, buy luxuries, and go out.

I’d say it’s a sweet and fair deal.

Thus, why it makes plenty of sense for me to deny that I am enslaved. When I work, I thrive.

I wouldn't say you are enslaved. I am just saying your wages are not the fruit of your labor.

 

[Koldo]

Well, do we agree that an economy would exist absent of a State?

Yes.

 

[an anarchist]

I wouldn't say you are enslaved. I am just saying your wages are not the fruit of your labor.

Well I guess we can agree to disagree and leave people to their own conclusions because I felt like I explained what I can. I’m not the most educated or smart and it’s been a while since I’ve read an economics or political philosophy book.

 

[an anarchist]

Yes.

Now, I am sure we disagree if the market can be accurately predicted and accounted for. Government attempts to direct and manipulate the economy (“for the better”). That is a core function of government. But the spontaneous nature of the market and the subjectivity of value makes the market impossible to predict, so what can government hope to do? It can only serve as a hurdle, for even if it were to somehow accurately predict and measure the value of economic assets, values change as preferences in individuals change. The free market on the other hands takes into account the spontaneous and inherently unpredictable nature of the market.

Do you disagree?

 

[Kfox]

The context was taxes though. Refusing it to give it away is opposing the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor through taxation.

Taxes is about much more than redistributing of wealth, it's about funding schools, security, and other necessities. Personally I have no problem with redistribution of some wealth, but only to a limited degree.

No, not necessarily. But more importantly, when it comes down to this issue, I am much more worried about social issues than I am about fairness. It is much more productive to deal with the former than the latter.

My concern is more about fairness when it comes to social issues. I don't think unfairness is justified simply because it is on a social issue.

Let me provide an example to further elaborate my point: Imagine someone is selling their labor for a given ammount of money. This money is only sufficient to buy food/water and nothing else (like shelter, medication, clothes, etc.). Imagine also that the employer is making a lot of money through this person's work. Is this fair? One might say so, even though I wouldn't. But more importantly: There is no dispute that this situation creates social issues. So we can skip the entire 'fairness debate' and go straight to what solution(s) we are gonna pick to solve this problem.

So you feel the labor's pay should be based on the amount of profit the employer makes? How about during the years the employer makes no money? Should the workers be expected to work with no pay? A few years back the Ford Motor Company went 6 years without turning a profit; would it have been justified to expect all of those workers to be forced to work without pay for those years? Or do you feel worker pay should only be tied to profit when the profit is good, but during the times when profit is bad, the pay should be tied to something else?

 

[Kfox]

IP stifles innovation and the market. Let’s say I was the first fella to make a car. Then I patent it and no one else can make a car. This denies people the opportunity to use my design more efficiently and offer it for cheaper. How can one own an idea? If someone uses their own resources to make their own cars, how can I be mad? Because I figured out how to do it first does not give me the claim to the worlds resources, because that is what intellectual property implies. If I own a patent, I am dictating what others can do with their own resources.

I will admit I know little about the details of IP, but obviously the first person to make a car, a computer, a cell phone, TV, etc. etc. has not been able to do via IP. So what prevented them from doing this?

 

[Heyo]

Financial wealth is based on the dollar amount your assets are worth minus debt.

Are dollars (at a given time) an infinite property? Can we put a finite number to all dollars in circulation?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The free market on the other hands takes into account the spontaneous and inherently unpredictable nature of the market..

'free market' ?

That's a misnomer .. the free market was recognized as only serving those that printed the money ..
so the era of central banks came into being .. state controlled, naturally.

 

[Koldo]

Now, I am sure we disagree if the market can be accurately predicted and accounted for. Government attempts to direct and manipulate the economy (“for the better”). That is a core function of government. But the spontaneous nature of the market and the subjectivity of value makes the market impossible to predict, so what can government hope to do? It can only serve as a hurdle, for even if it were to somehow accurately predict and measure the value of economic assets, values change as preferences in individuals change. The free market on the other hands takes into account the spontaneous and inherently unpredictable nature of the market.

Do you disagree?

I am not sure I understand you here. Do you mean that the government can't direct and manipulate the economy properly for the better because we can't accurately predict the outcome of such actions?

 

[Koldo]

Taxes is about much more than redistributing of wealth, it's about funding schools, security, and other necessities. Personally I have no problem with redistribution of some wealth, but only to a limited degree.

Funding schools, security and other necessites is a way to indirectly redistribute wealth.

My concern is more about fairness when it comes to social issues. I don't think unfairness is justified simply because it is on a social issue.

What is unfair to you might not be unfair to me. But the existence in itself of a social issue that demands a solution is far less prone to being a matter of debate. It is therefore far more productive to start with that being the starting point.

So you feel the labor's pay should be based on the amount of profit the employer makes?

Not necessarily. What truly concerns me is a employer that makes massive profit while many of their employees are so poor they need food stamps to get by. In other words: in order to protect that profit, others need to step up to save the day.

 

[PureX]

How is it an idiotic question? The concept of limited wealth is one worthy of scrutiny.

"Wealth" refers to what. exactly?

Seems to me it refers to being in control of the opportunities and resources needed to survive and thrive as human beings. And these are clearly not things that are in infinite supply. But for some reason there are some here that just want to argue no matter how obvious that point of fact, is, and I consider these people to be idiots. Or more accurately, ignoramuses. Because they have no interest in ever learning anything. All they care about is that they can walk away from every interaction with the ignorant idea that they were "right" no matter how wrong or stupid they actually are.

 

[Kfox]

Are dollars (at a given time) an infinite property? Can we put a finite number to all dollars in circulation?

There is a limited amount of currency in circulation, but more is printed as necessary. However the amount of currency in circulation does not need to equal the amount of wealth that exists. Just because Elon Musk is worth $250 billion does not mean he actually has $250 billion worth of currency.

 

[Kfox]

Funding schools, security and other necessites is a way to indirectly redistribute wealth.

I disagree. Funding schools, roads, and other such programs does not put dollars in the hands of the poor.

What is unfair to you might not be unfair to me. But the existence in itself of a social issue that demands a solution is far less prone to being a matter of debate.

I disagree. What you call a social issue that demands a solution, might be what I call a social issue whose problems have been solved.

It is therefore far more productive to start with that being the starting point.

Regardless of the starting point, the end result should be fairness.

Not necessarily. What truly concerns me is a employer that makes massive profit while many of their employees are so poor they need food stamps to get by. In other words: in order to protect that profit, others need to step up to save the day.

That's what we have minimum wage laws for. The employer should not be responsible for supporting the chosen lifestyle of its employees.