Let's Debate Inequality

[Kfox]

There are two construction workers, both have acquired a nice patch of land. One of them has built a few houses on the land, but not yet sold any of them. The other has done nothing. Do they have the same amount of wealth?

Just because you say your possession is worth "X" doesn't mean it is. If for whatever reason the one with the house is unable to sell or use that house, the house would be worthless thus the same amount of wealth, but in the real world, there are systems in place; like appraisers who are legally allowed to attach value to certain things (houses being one of them) and from their appraisal alone you the guy with the house that he built can provide proof of increased wealth. But this doesn't work for everything, If I made a tool that I claim is valuable, unless somebody is willing to buy that tool, it's worthless.

 

[Koldo]

This wouldn’t be a problem if humans were more smart and educated. They would just be able to hop into the robot field or coding to put it simply.

It is a problem with our education system, which I think ultimately goes back to the problem of the existence of government itself.

You are presuming there is/would be room for a massive number of people in the coding and robot field, but this couldn't even be the case.

 

[Kfox]

For the mass unemployed, it effectively did. People lost their homes and their livings.
For the wealthy and more affluent areas, who cares? They lost nothing.

..so we saw mass rioting, and a new role for the police. They were then equipped with shields,
tear gas, water cannon.
Her govt. further divided the nation with populist selling off of shares of public utilities.
Naturally, those mass unemployed and most of their offspring could not participate.

It blighted many people's lives permanently due to persistent unemployment and poor health.

Reminder: We are debating INEQUALITY !

Yes we are debating INEQUALITY, but this particular point is about the idea that they can completely stop all wealth growth by simply raising interest rates. The fact that you've admitted the rich were still able to increase wealth proves my point, that though it may have slowed down, it did not come to a complete halt.

 

[PureX]

When we accept greed as a reasonable motive for making decisions, we make a lot of really bad decisions. And over time all these bad decisions add up to a very poor quality if life for those that do not have a lot of money. And we can see this result everywhere we look even in the richest country on Earth. Or we would see it if we are willing to open our eyes and look around us with the suffering and well being of others in mind.

When we accept capitalism as a reasonable economic system, we are accepting greed as a reasonable basis upon which to make a great many of our decision. And we will inevitably suffer the consequences of all those bad decisions. But even worse then that, we will want to defend the bad path we've chosen, and in doing that we will poison ourselves ethically and morally. And sadly, that's a result that we will not recover from.

 

[an anarchist]

You are presuming there is/would be room for a massive number of people in the coding and robot field, but this couldn't even be the case.

I believe there is an under population problem.

As technology becomes more advanced, higher specialization will be required. An exponentially smaller percentage of people will be able to be specialized enough for these advanced tasks as technology advances. Therefore, we need to keep growing the population.

So I completely disagree with you.
Edit: because the economic fields grow with technology

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fact that you've admitted the rich were still able to increase wealth proves my point, that though it may have slowed down, it did not come to a complete halt.

Of course it didn't come to a complete halt .. that was not their intention.
Their intention, imo, was to ensure the privileged remain privileged, and accept the collateral
damage .. as long as it wasn't them.

..and the charade continues today, with 'leading economists' looking after 'number 1'.
Those who point out the results of Capitalism (usury) are rejected from serious posts in govt.
Govts. around the globe are being controlled by those with financial power in central banks.

 

[an anarchist]

Capitalism (usury)

False equivocation.

 

[Koldo]

I believe there is an under population problem.

As technology becomes more advanced, higher specialization will be required.

Sure, but that doesn't solve the issue that comes with replacing human workers with robots/AI.

An exponentially smaller percentage of people will be able to be specialized enough for these advanced tasks as technology advances.

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[an anarchist]

How did you reach this conclusion?

I made a separate thread

Underpopulation crisis.

Claim: there is an underpopulation crisis. I don’t have the data to back it up, and I don’t feel like fishing it up. Rather, I want to examine the logic behind the claim that we need to forever grow our population. The basic logic is this: as technology becomes exponentially more advanced...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[PureX]

I believe there is an under population problem.

As technology becomes more advanced, higher specialization will be required.

Why do you just blindly assume that it's society's job to rise to the needs of technology? Why doesn't it occur to you that it's the logical purpose of our technical advancement to serve the well being of society, and not the other way around?

It worries me that so many of us have become so completely blind to this horrific error in our priorities.

An exponentially smaller percentage of people will be able to be specialized enough for these advanced tasks as technology advances. Therefore, we need to keep growing the population.

So I completely disagree with you.
Edit: because the economic fields grow with technology

 

[muhammad_isa]

False equivocation.

In a market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets..
Capitalism

What is a "financial market", do you think?
The industrial revolution came about due to the rise of Protestant banking after
the 'Reformation'.

 

[Watchmen]

Cite as many capitalist countries as you can that got a lot of people out of poverty that were neither: colonizers, imperialists, nor significantly supported by one of the former two.

You’re talking correlation. I’m talking causation.

 

[Nakosis]

What do you call putting your desire for power above everyone else's needs?

A politician.

I am not really talking about giving it away as charity. I am talking about taxation.

I'm not against reasonable taxation.

Because what I am suggesting wouldn't cripple the economy.

Then it would have to be reasonable.

 

[Koldo]

You’re talking correlation. I’m talking causation.

I am talking causation too, not correlation. Can you please cite now as many capitalist countries as you can that got a lot of people out of poverty that were neither: colonizers, imperialists, nor significantly supported by one of the former two?

 

[Nakosis]

The problem with this theory is that no capitalist wants to sell ten widgets to the middle class for ten dollars each if they can sell one widget to a rich man for a hundred dollars.

I'm glad you feel capable of speaking for all capitalists.

Have you been paying attention to what's happening among the car manufacturers? Motor vehicles cost as much as a working man's house. If the working man could even afford a house. Why? Because all the auto manufacturers want to sell 100k plus vehicles to rich people. That's where the big profits are. They could mak money building and selling reliable modest vehicles, but they all want the big bucks. The big profits. So they all build vehicles that are stupidly and unnecessarily oversized and complex so they can charge huge prices for them. And of course only the rich can buy them. Screw everyone else. Screw the environment. Screw any pedestrian that happens to get in front of these giant vehicles. It's all about serving the rich. That's where the money is.

Same goes for the housing market. All the builders are building McMansions because that's where the big profits are. None of them want to build affordable, reliable homes for working people. They are not catering to the overall customer base, they are catering to the rich customer's wallet.

Here is 50 companies who say otherwise.

https://www.housingfinance.com/management-operations/top-50-affordable-housing-developers-of-2022_o

 

[Nakosis]

And neither is refraining from stealing.
Capitalism has one value and one value only, making money. If you can steal something and get away with it, as a good capitalist, you should do it.

I suggest you rely more on Adam Smith instead of Karl Marx regarding capitalism.

 

[Heyo]

Just because you say your possession is worth "X" doesn't mean it is. If for whatever reason the one with the house is unable to sell or use that house, the house would be worthless thus the same amount of wealth, but in the real world, there are systems in place; like appraisers who are legally allowed to attach value to certain things (houses being one of them) and from their appraisal alone you the guy with the house that he built can provide proof of increased wealth. But this doesn't work for everything, If I made a tool that I claim is valuable, unless somebody is willing to buy that tool, it's worthless.

Have you had a formal education in economics, or have you ever looked into the field? What is the basis of your ideas?

 

[Heyo]

I suggest you rely more on Adam Smith instead of Karl Marx regarding capitalism.

Adam Smith was a dreamer who didn't take human nature into account. We know that the "Invisible Hand" is an illusion.

 

[Nakosis]

Adam Smith was a dreamer who didn't take human nature into account. We know that the "Invisible Hand" is an illusion.

Karl Marx never participated in capitalism. He was an ivory tower intellectual.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Agreed.

It's self-evidently true that the profit incentive drives people to do up to these four things, the first three being beneficial and the last requiring laws and regulations to mitigate:

• People are more creative in order to make more money. Come up with a good idea and you can make bank on it
• People are more efficient in order to make more money. Streamline production or reduce overhead and profits go up.
• People are more industrious in order to make more money. Get an education. Work full time. Open a new branch of your business.
• People will harm and cheat others in order to make more money.

The ideal approach in my opinion is to capitalize on the positive aspects of the first three behaviors, outlaw and penalize the fourth, and incorporate elements of socialism to underpin infrastructure, foster human development, and assist those facing misfortune.

You: How much wealth is too much? What is the number?
Me: How much money does anybody need? Whatever the number, more than that is greed
You: That is the question for you to answer.

I did answer it.

Maybe you meant for me personally and specifically. We have enough money to sustain our current lifestyle until we die, and it's not because we're obscenely wealthy, but because we are debt-free and live humbly in an inexpensive economy that costs less to live in than our income, which is just interest income and Social Security, but that means that our savings grow every year.

I retired fifteen years ago because I thought I could, so why go on working? Why work for money that you don't need? The trick is to have the ability to say, "I have enough."

What I mean by living humbly is that we drive a 2001 vehicle. I almost never buy clothes. We don't go to bars. We're done travelling. Doctors, vets, and medications are much less expensive here. A nice dinner for two here is well under $50 USD including a generous tip. Lunch for two today was 380 pesos - about $19 USD before tip, and that included a margarita.

This is all we need. We could spend more, but why? On what? A new car? This one is still running just fine.

This is all great. But why do you want to get to make these decisions for anyone else. Do you want the government to implement something to limit wealth?

But I'm well aware that for many, there is no such thing as enough money. They're at a disadvantage. They're never satisfied. Too bad that. My peers are still working in their seventies. I've been on vacation in paradise for fifteen years now. That had more value than more money.

Ok, I am happy for you. Other people have different ideas about life.

People in a free society also have the right to limit that. I would if I could. America was financially healthiest and had its strongest middle class when taxes were progressive and the highest rates approached 100%:

No, liberty and freedom don't include government taking or limiting your wealth above taxation needed to implement government.

"The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income."

That was the American pinnacle.

That is immoral. Unless you think the ends justify the means.

History and common sense contradict you. Ever since the class wars of the Reagan era, the wealthy have been getting wealthier on the backs of the middle class. More for them meant less for you and me. The less they pay staff, the greater their profits and the poorer the staff.

That is not the case unless unions are involved. But that is another discussion.