Let's Debate Inequality

[muhammad_isa]

Do you think those poor would be better off if the rich did not exist?

I think we would all be "better off" if the wealth was more evenly distributed.

1. Unsustainable immigration to the richer nations in the northern hemisphere would be down.
2. climate-change would be thereby reduced
3. wars would be reduced

I believe that redistribution of wealth would only be necessary on a small scale, and not
through extreme left-wing policy .. as a non-usurious global financial system would not
result in such skewed distribution of wealth in the first place.

Stocks and shares are OK, the investor takes a risk, .. but as the financial system is underpinned
by usury, many global companies have unfair advantages against small business etc.

In other words, I'm saying that what many people envisage capitalism to be .. namely free market
policies that 'create wealth' on a universal basis .. it's not true,

We all know that London has been a main financial center for some time, now. How did that happen?

Inspired by the success of the London goldsmiths, some of whom became the forerunners of great English banks, banks began issuing paper notes quite properly termed "banknotes", which circulated in the same way that government-issued currency circulates today.
...
These banknotes were a form of representative money which could be converted into gold or silver by application at the bank. Since banks issued notes far in excess of the gold and silver they kept on deposit, sudden loss of public confidence in a bank could precipitate mass redemption of banknotes and result in bankruptcy.
...
The use of banknotes issued by private commercial banks as legal tender has gradually been replaced by the issuance of bank notes authorized and controlled by national governments. The Bank of England was granted sole rights to issue banknotes in England after 1694. In the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank was granted similar rights after its establishment in 1913. Until recently, these government-authorized currencies were forms of representative money, since they were partially backed by gold or silver and were theoretically convertible into gold or silver.
History_of_money - Wikipedia

"Until recently" .. in other words, major currencies are now what's known as 'fiat money' .. it's
value is determined and manipulated by governments collaborating in common 'monetary policies'.

Usury creates monopolies and unfair advantage .. governments have historically regulated usury,
but today, it is practiced on a national and global scale.

 

[Nakosis]

The G7..
It is no surprise that this alliance secretly started in the 70's, when OPEC formed,
and held the West to ransom, by demanding higher oil prices.

Somebody had to 'pay for it', and it wasn't going to be the wealthy.
Economies had to be propped up, as in the 2007-8 recession, and under capitalism, it is
the poor who always have to suffer through austerity.

You probably tie Western governments to capitalism. To me these Western governments are as much a problem for capitalism as to other issues.

I've no love for how Western governments go about financing foreign wars. I just don't see how changing the economic system would change any of this. Socialism/communism I suspect it would even be easier to finance wars and the citizenry would still end up being the ones to pay.

Maybe the banks wouldn't benefit so much but there'd still be folks about benefiting'

 

[Nakosis]

I think we would all be "better off" if the wealth was more evenly distributed.

1. Unsustainable immigration to the richer nations in the northern hemisphere would be down.
2. climate-change would be thereby reduced
3. wars would be reduced

Currently countries like France stifle capitalism in countries like Africa. They force their currency on African states and funnel profits to themselves.

I believe that redistribution of wealth would only be necessary on a small scale, and not
through extreme left-wing policy .. as a non-usurious global financial system would not
result in such skewed distribution of wealth in the first place.

Stocks and shares are OK, the investor takes a risk, .. but as the financial system is underpinned
by usury, many global companies have unfair advantages against small business etc.

In other words, I'm saying that what many people envisage capitalism to be .. namely free market
policies that 'create wealth' on a universal basis .. it's not true,

We all know that London has been a main financial center for some time, now. How did that happen?

Inspired by the success of the London goldsmiths, some of whom became the forerunners of great English banks, banks began issuing paper notes quite properly termed "banknotes", which circulated in the same way that government-issued currency circulates today.
...
These banknotes were a form of representative money which could be converted into gold or silver by application at the bank. Since banks issued notes far in excess of the gold and silver they kept on deposit, sudden loss of public confidence in a bank could precipitate mass redemption of banknotes and result in bankruptcy.
...
The use of banknotes issued by private commercial banks as legal tender has gradually been replaced by the issuance of bank notes authorized and controlled by national governments. The Bank of England was granted sole rights to issue banknotes in England after 1694. In the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank was granted similar rights after its establishment in 1913. Until recently, these government-authorized currencies were forms of representative money, since they were partially backed by gold or silver and were theoretically convertible into gold or silver.
History_of_money - Wikipedia

"Until recently" .. in other words, major currencies are now what's known as 'fiat money' .. it's
value is determined and manipulated by governments collaborating in common 'monetary policies'.

Usury creates monopolies and unfair advantage .. governments have historically regulated usury,
but today, it is practiced on a national and global scale.

These countries should be allowed to develop their own currency model. Develop their own economic system, though I suspect they'd soon find capitalism the strongest. Usury is unnecessary for capitalism. Not that I see a problem with it but if a country sees it as bad hey, don't allow it. It's use is independent of whichever economic system you employee.

Yes, the US regulates usury as a means to control the money supply. Maybe we could have a better way but that wouldn't necessary cause any problems to capitalism.

 

[Kfox]

I think we would all be "better off" if the wealth was more evenly distributed.

I’m gonna take that as a “No”, that you realize the poor would not be better off if rich Capitalists did not exist. That when capitalists are allowed to generate huge sums of wealth, that they can be taxed at extremely high rates and those taxes can be used to supplement the poor, and other programs. If my assumption of your view is wrong, feel free to tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

As far as you saying we would all be better off if wealth were more evenly distributed, what did you mean by this? Do you mean if the poor worked twice as hard generating wealth, and the rich worked half as hard generating wealth, resulting in everybody generating wealth; so even though the economic pie remains the same sized, it is more evenly distributed? I agree that would be ideal; but I also think it would be ideal if 90% of the music came from 90% of artists instead of 1%, and if 90% of books sold came from 90% of authors; instead of 10%. But that isn’t how things work in the real world. In the real world, some people are more talented than others, some people are more motivated than others, some people are more willing to sacrifice in an effort to be the best than others, so the expectation of accomplishments being evenly divided is unrealistic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Socialism/communism I suspect it would even be easier to finance wars..

Communism is a left-wing reaction to capitalism, amongst other things.
Perhaps you mean that you don't trust other nations to 'play fair'.

I don't propose an abrupt change overnight .. nor to abandon treaties and allies.
It would be a start, to press for change to monetary policy, by not raising interest rates
to control inflation. There are many ways to 'cook an egg', and I'm not fond of one that induces riots and wars.

Naturally, the wealthy generally try to hide what they are doing, as it's in their interest(hmm) to keep the status quo. They insist it's 'leading economic theory', and there is no other alternative.

Maybe the banks wouldn't benefit so much but there'd still be folks about benefiting'

All the mega corporations are essentially banks .. it's all a game to them.
There is nothing wrong with a nation becoming poorer .. not TOO poor, obviously.
The wealthy 'create wealth' by effectively stealing from the poor .. not by hard graft.

..and that applies on a global basis too. How is it that manufacturing can be in serious decline,
while economies can still prosper?
The answer is in the manipulation of 'fiat money' .. the losers, naturally, become enraged
with such nations, as there is no 'even playing field'. The former colonialists keep their wealth
through usury, and so-called 'developing nations' become divided in civil war .. further
prolonging the illusion that the richer nations are richer because they are 'better'.

 

[muhammad_isa]

These countries should be allowed to develop their own currency model. Develop their own economic system, though I suspect they'd soon find capitalism the strongest..

They feel there is no other choice, as they have to trade with the rest of the world.
Even China, whilst maintaining its political govt. , is involved with 'playing the capitalist nations
at their own game'.

Usury is unnecessary for capitalism.

Uh, no .. that's a common misunderstanding.
It relies on usury, as the finance (capital) depends on the wealthy depositing their money in financial
institutions.
Show me a capitalist nation that isn't based on that model.
Capitalism implies economic freedom, and a state which disallows its citizens and institutions to participate in usury is not capitalist.

Christian capitalist nations since the Reformation have got around this, by suggesting that usury
should be defined as 'a large increase' in money paid to depositors or paid by debtors.
Of course, when govt. banks themselves are involved, it DOES result in large amounts .. hence we
have national deficits .. and the proclamations of austerity etc.

The govts. become enslaved to the wealthy, and if their policies aren't in line with their interests,
they fail !!!
That's what I call endemic corruption.

 

[Nakosis]

They feel there is no other choice, as they have to trade with the rest of the world.
Even China, whilst maintaining its political govt. , is involved with 'playing the capitalist nations
at their own game'.

More because it help their economic growth than a need to play along. I least hopefully these government are not that weak minded to be bullied into capitalism.

Uh, no .. that's a common misunderstanding.
It relies on usury, as the finance (capital) depends on the wealthy depositing their money in financial
institutions.
Show me a capitalist nation that isn't based on that model.
Capitalism implies economic freedom, and a state which disallows its citizens and institutions to participate in usury is not capitalist.

Usury was around long before capitalism. They are still in my mind separate discussions. I see nothing that ties them together other than that usury has been normalized. However countries like Saudi Arabia is developing a capitalist economy but still disallows usury.

Christian capitalist nations since the Reformation have got around this, by suggesting that usury
should be defined as 'a large increase' in money paid to depositors or paid by debtors.
Of course, when govt. banks themselves are involved, it DOES result in large amounts .. hence we
have national deficits .. and the proclamations of austerity etc.

The govts. become enslaved to the wealthy, and if their policies aren't in line with their interests,
they fail !!!
That's what I call endemic corruption.

I'll agree that usury is a problem for capitalism since it is so wide spread and helps to consolidate wealth more that disperse it. The idea behind capitalism is the dispersion of wealth. It does help that our money system in the US is based on usury. If we abolished usury our current economy would collapse. Actually I suspect the world economy would collapse. However it's been around "forever" so I don't see blaming its existence on capitalism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I’m gonna take that as a “No”, that you realize the poor would not be better off if rich Capitalists did not exist..

Even though I never said anything remotely like it?

As far as you saying we would all be better off if wealth were more evenly distributed, what did you mean by this? Do you mean if the poor worked twice as hard generating wealth, and the rich worked half as hard generating wealth, resulting in everybody generating wealth; so even though the economic pie remains the same sized, it is more evenly distributed?

No .. I meant what I said in my post:-

I believe that redistribution of wealth would only be necessary on a small scale, and not
through extreme left-wing policy .. as a non-usurious global financial system would not
result in such skewed distribution of wealth in the first place.

..that isn’t how things work in the real world..

..and who is responsible for this "real world" ?
I say those who ignore truth as it doesn't suit them.
i.e. that usury is despicable, as it is responsible for inequality, civil unrest and war

In the real world, some people are more talented than others, some people are more motivated than others, some people are more willing to sacrifice in an effort to be the best than others, so the expectation of accomplishments being evenly divided is unrealistic.

These are not 'capitalist traits' .. this is an attempt to defend the current status-quo, blaming
an alternative communist philosophy as being the only alternative to usury.
It's false !

One does NOT have to promote usury, in order for "people more talented than others, more motivated
than others" to reap the rewards of their efforts.

 

[Nakosis]

Communism is a left-wing reaction to capitalism, amongst other things.
Perhaps you mean that you don't trust other nations to 'play fair'.

I don't trust any nation's government to play fair. A government's highest priority is its own survival. Its citizenry is generally expendable. Like, hey, send them all off to war.

I don't propose an abrupt change overnight .. nor to abandon treaties and allies.
It would be a start, to press for change to monetary policy, by not raising interest rates
to control inflation. There are many ways to 'cook an egg', and I'm not fond of one that induces riots and wars.

Naturally, the wealthy generally try to hide what they are doing, as it's in their interest(hmm) to keep the status quo. They insist it's 'leading economic theory', and there is no other alternative.

I don't have a problem with this.

All the mega corporations are essentially banks .. it's all a game to them.
There is nothing wrong with a nation becoming poorer .. not TOO poor, obviously.
The wealthy 'create wealth' by effectively stealing from the poor .. not by hard graft.

I don't agree, but you got to be smart. IDK, maybe the temptation to go into debt is too great. There are other ways. Foreigners come to the US and can become independently wealthy. So the path exists. Maybe just not as well laid out as it should be.

..and that applies on a global basis too. How is it that manufacturing can be in serious decline,
while economies can still prosper?

Certainly not the ideal behind capitalism.

The answer is in the manipulation of 'fiat money' .. the losers, naturally, become enraged
with such nations, as there is no 'even playing field'. The former colonialists keep their wealth
through usury, and so-called 'developing nations' become divided in civil war .. further
prolonging the illusion that the richer nations are richer because they are 'better'.

Best not to play that game, which I am able to do for the most part while living in a capitalist economy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

More because it help their economic growth than a need to play along..

Greed, you mean? How wonderful

Usury was around long before capitalism. They are still in my mind separate discussions. I see nothing that ties them together other than that usury has been normalized..

Really?
..so in your "unrelated model", what does 'economic freedom', and 'market forces' actually mean?

However countries like Saudi Arabia is developing a capitalist economy but still disallows usury.

Do they?
I'm told that most so-called Muslim countries have banks that participate in usury, Saudia
being no exception.

..when Egypt voted in an Islamic party that wasn't in agreement with usurious financial institutions,
it failed .. for multiple reasons .. that is a debate in itself.
Perhaps @Debater Slayer is more qualified than me on that one.

I'll agree that usury is a problem for capitalism since it is so wide spread and helps to consolidate wealth more that disperse it.

Fair enough .. you are aware that it has resulted in current mega companies internationally
dominating business ..

It does help that our money system in the US is based on usury. If we abolished usury our current economy would collapse..

You mean, your domination of the world financially would collapse?
Probably true .. so a cautious approach at reducing it is the answer.
If not, I see more trouble ahead .. but hey, we all have to die.

I, for one, do not want to be remembered as 'a villain' .. one responsible for enmity and war.
The UK is relatively prosperous at the moment, and immigration is viewed by the majority
as a "serious problem" .. unsustainable rates.

I would like some peace .. I would like to see wealth more evenly divided, and to become
poorer in the world rankings.
Not 'poor poor' .. who would?

Actually I suspect the world economy would collapse. However it's been around "forever" so I don't see blaming its existence on capitalism.

What a cop out .. such an attitude just beckons on armageddon .. to suggest that it is impossible
to have a fairer global economic system than usury is merely "self-serving".
It gives worldly increase for the short term, but in the long term brings doom and destruction upon itself.

 

[Debater Slayer]

However countries like Saudi Arabia is developing a capitalist economy but still disallows usury.

Do they?
I'm told that most so-called Muslim countries have banks that participate in usury, Saudia
being no exception.

..when Egypt voted in an Islamic party that wasn't in agreement with usurious financial institutions,
it failed .. for multiple reasons .. that is a debate in itself.
Perhaps @Debater Slayer is more qualified than me on that one.

Yeah, banks that deal in interest are widely found around the Muslim world. In fact, most banks in Saudi Arabia deal in interest; those that don't are the exception.

Here's part of a post I recently made where I went into details about this topic:

Most licensed banks in Saudi Arabia deal in interest and engage in non-Islamic banking practices. They exist in parallel to Islamic ones; neither type of bank replaces the other. For a few examples, here are the websites of three large banks in Saudi Arabia, where the interest rates for some types of financing are listed:

Finance & Saving Pricing | Saudi National Bank

www.alahli.com

https://www.saib.com.sa/en/prices-financing-and-savings-products

Prices of financing and savings products | SAB

www.sab.com

There's also this:

Despite the trend in the Saudi Arabian banking market to convert to full-fledged Islamic Banks, only four among the 12 local licensed banks are considered to be pure Islamic[1] banks:

• Al-Rajhi Bank Saudi Arabia
• Al Jazeera Bank
• Al-Bilad Bank
• Alinma Bank

According to scholar of international finance, Ibrahim Warde, the two largest Islamic banking groups, Dar al-Maal al-Islami and al-Baraka Bank, have not been able to obtain licenses to operate commercial banks in Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that they are both owned by prominent Saudis. In 1985, the al-Rajhi Banking and Investment Company was authorized to engage in interest-free banking, but on the condition that it did not use the word "Islamic" in its name.[2]

Saudi Arabia does not officially recognize the concept of Islamic banking. The logic is that if one bank is recognized as an Islamic institution then all others, by implication, would be un-Islamic. The official line was that all banks operating in Saudi Arabia were by definition Islamic.[2]

Islamic banking in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are more foreign banks in Saudi Arabia than there are domestic ones, too, so there are even more banks that deal in interest aside from the local ones.

 

[Kfox]

No .. I meant what I said in my post:-

I believe that redistribution of wealth would only be necessary on a small scale, and not
through extreme left-wing policy .. as a non-usurious global financial system would not
result in such skewed distribution of wealth in the first place.

When you say "redistribution of wealth" exactly what do you mean by that? Do you mean like in the US where the rich pay 40% of their income in taxes, and some of those taxes goes to the poor? Or do you mean something else different. Exactly what do you mean?

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, banks that deal in interest are widely found around the Muslim world. In fact, most banks in Saudi Arabia deal in interest; those that don't are the exception.

Here's part of a post I recently made where I went into details about this topic:

Why would someone go to a usury bank when a non-usury one is available?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why would someone go to a usury bank when a non-usury one is available?

It depends on what that person needs or wants. Interest-based banks sometimes offer advantages that suit a given person's situation more, even if the disadvantages or risks are also often greater than they are in the alternative.

 

[Nakosis]

Greed, you mean? How wonderful

How do you define greed?
Normal economic growth is usually not considered greed.

Really?
..so in your "unrelated model", what does 'economic freedom', and 'market forces' actually mean?

Economic freedom means the right of every individual to control their own labor and property. People being free to work, consume, invest their money as they see fit.

This freedom would be the causality of the market forces.

Do they?
I'm told that most so-called Muslim countries have banks that participate in usury, Saudia
being no exception.

..when Egypt voted in an Islamic party that wasn't in agreement with usurious financial institutions,
it failed .. for multiple reasons .. that is a debate in itself.
Perhaps @Debater Slayer is more qualified than me on that one.

Why do you think that is?
I can see a benefit of usury. People are more likely to make money available to the public. Yes, there are a lot of pitfalls but the general idea would be to borrow money to make money. One ought to only borrow money only if they have a plan to come out ahead. IOW, you should be earning more money than the cost of borrowing it.

Fair enough .. you are aware that it has resulted in current mega companies internationally
dominating business ..

Capitalism does assume the individual will guard their own interest. However this means you are the captain of your financial ship leaving you to be responsible if your ship runs aground. Public schools, in my experience, don't do a good job of teaching how to navigate financial waters.

You mean, your domination of the world financially would collapse?
Probably true .. so a cautious approach at reducing it is the answer.
If not, I see more trouble ahead .. but hey, we all have to die.

I suspect there is too much enforcement of the current usury banking system. I doubt it will change, yeah maybe it does collapse upon itself. You have to be smart enough not to go down with that ship.

I, for one, do not want to be remembered as 'a villain' .. one responsible for enmity and war.
The UK is relatively prosperous at the moment, and immigration is viewed by the majority
as a "serious problem" .. unsustainable rates.

I would like some peace .. I would like to see wealth more evenly divided, and to become
poorer in the world rankings.
Not 'poor poor' .. who would?

Someone is likely to see you as a villain regardless. Most people I suspect went down this road with good intentions. Not everyone but many I suspect felt they were acting to the public benefit. People don't generally see themselves as villains.

What a cop out .. such an attitude just beckons on armageddon .. to suggest that it is impossible
to have a fairer global economic system than usury is merely "self-serving".
It gives worldly increase for the short term, but in the long term brings doom and destruction upon itself.

That's not what I suggested. I see you have a argument against usury. I even see you point on this.

However to me this is a different discussion than capitalism. That is all I'm saying.

 

[Nakosis]

It depends on what that person needs or wants. Interest-based banks sometimes offer advantages that suit a given person's situation more, even if the disadvantages or risks are also often greater than they are in the alternative.

We have some interest free loans available in the US. The cons are they are harder to find. Harder to qualify for, have stricter/shorter terms and/or higher fees.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When you say "redistribution of wealth" exactly what do you mean by that? Do you mean like in the US where the rich pay 40% of their income in taxes, and some of those taxes goes to the poor? Or do you mean something else different. Exactly what do you mean?

Yes, I mean exactly that .. high taxes that are spent on the poor.
If inequality was minimal, there would be much less need for it .. and social cohesion would
be stronger.
Usury is the main culprit .. which is driven by greed .. the more we have, the more we want.
People adhering to spiritual paths recognize that "wishing for others, that which we wish for ourselves",
is not compatible with such economic philosophy, which rewards the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
..keeps people in servitude, or in the extreme, seriously oppresses them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How do you define greed?
Normal economic growth is usually not considered greed.

I'm not saying anything about economic growth.
My comment was in reference to yours about China employing usury, incompatible with
their political philosophy.
Some might say it's hypocritical, but I doubt they see it that way .. they probably see it
in the light of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".
i.e. economic war

..but where does it all end?
Like climate-change, a group of people/nations has to do something about it.
..but I'm not holding my breath. Many people don't or won't understand .. until it's too late,
and disaster of enormous proportions is upon us.

Economic freedom means the right of every individual to control their own labor and property. People being free to work, consume, invest their money as they see fit.

This freedom would be the causality of the market forces.

No..

The liberal free-market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud, theft or government regulation.
- Wikipedia -

If people are denied by govt. regulation to invest their money in a usurious financial
institution, the vast majority would not consider that economic freedom, or a capitalist nation.

Why do you think that is?

It's politics .. the wealthy have everything to gain, and when the wealthy countries are "calling the tune",
others follow, not wanting to be left behind.

Unfortunately, it's all going to end in disaster .. like a bunch of people at a poker table, who
end up despising each other.

Capitalism does assume the individual will guard their own interest.

Mmm .. like the mafia and loan-sharks.

Someone is likely to see you as a villain regardless.

I'm not only concerned with "someone" .. I'm concerned with everyone.
..which is why I think that nations/leaders who disregard the UN are rather arrogant.

..to me this is a different discussion than capitalism. That is all I'm saying.

Not to me, it isn't.
Those that peddle the only alternative to the current system is communism would like you to believe that. It's merely a deception, to protect their own interests.

One does not have to believe that MAGA is the only way, as the US is already ranked top in
the global wealth table.
What the ****???

 

[muhammad_isa]

We have some interest free loans available in the US. The cons are they are harder to find. Harder to qualify for, have stricter/shorter terms and/or higher fees.

Mmm .. I know .. it's the same in the UK.
They can't compete with "the big boys" .. their loans usually end up more expensive.

However, rent-buy schemes are becoming more available, and they are often more
affordable than a variable rate mortgage.

 

[Kfox]

Yes, I mean exactly that .. high taxes that are spent on the poor.

Yeah; I have no problem with that.

If inequality was minimal, there would be much less need for it .. and social cohesion would
be stronger.

Yeah;' but I don't think that is possible in a place that allows economic freedom.

Usury is the main culprit .. which is driven by greed .. the more we have, the more we want.

What is "usury"?