Let's Debate Inequality

[PureX]

Anti-capitalists have the underlying assumption that wealth is a fixed resource.

This is false.

Wealth is created.

As usual when it comes to these things, you are wildly wrong.

 

[an anarchist]

As usual when it comes to these things, you are wildly wrong.

As usual when it comes to these things, you are wildly wrong.

A tree =/= paper
Paper is a product of value. It has to be created. The creation of wealth is a conscious action that can be observed throughout the entirety of history. Mankind has more wealth today than we did a thousand years ago.

Quite simple to understand if you think about it.

 

[an anarchist]

As usual when it comes to these things, you are wildly wrong.

A tree =/= paper
Paper is a product of value. It has to be created. The creation of wealth is a conscious action that can be observed throughout the entirety of history. Mankind has more wealth today than we did a thousand years ago.

Quite simple to understand if you think about it.

(notice I backed up my dismissal, unlike @PureX who simply tried to hand wave away my response).

 

[sayak83]

What are you calling merit?
You are looking at a certain outcome and declaring it is a consequence of merit, but I have no idea why.

Merit of the products or goods made by the companies. If companies are not being outcompeted by new companies offering better or more relevant goods, why do the top companies change so quickly?

 

[sayak83]

As usual when it comes to these things, you are wildly wrong.

No you are. Wealth is, potentially, an ever growing resource. It has no realistic upper limit.
Which is why, paradoxically, wealth distribution makes sense. Since you can always make more.

 

[sayak83]

And you need to understand that most people are not out to get all they can. Most are ok with having enough of what they need and letting the rest go to those who need it. You may not be one of the them, but the are the norm. We don't want or like fighting and struggling against each other for our survival. Yet that is the capitalist mindset. And they force it on everyone else.

Maybe they should consider letting their kids make their own way. Like everyone else. And WITH everyone else.

Two (or more) companies trying to serve the same need instead of one. It wastes twice the energy and resources while pitting innovators against each other instead of enabling them to cooperate to achieve the goal. And that's just for starters. Then let's throw in the fact that they make their own omployees compete so they can keep wages down. And since maximum profits are the ultimate goal, quality, necessity, and the effect on the community and environment are all tossed aside. The capitalists would sell us rat poison and children's cereal if they could get a big enough profit for it and avoid prison.

It's not only wasteful, it socially toxic.

I have no idea, but where I come from, one of the main motivations of working is leaving something behind for your children, and of course giving them a decent upbringing.
Again, why would anyone ever improve their products if they have a monopoly on production??!! What world do you live in, as its surely not earth...

 

[an anarchist]

No you are. Wealth is, potentially, an ever growing resource. It has no realistic upper limit.
Which is why, paradoxically, wealth distribution makes sense. Since you can always make more.

I do disagree with your third sentence.

I say it is paradoxical for a reason, because it doesn’t make sense. But that’s just my opinion and I’ll explain why.

The mechanism in which wealth is best distributed I am sure we disagree on. I believe the best method at the creation of wealth is a completely anarchistic capitalist system. By virtue of there being more wealth created, there is more to go around.

Also, the alternative is government. Government provides a mechanism in which the distribution of wealth can be abused, because ultimately the wealth has to be accumulated by the government in order for them to distribute it. The free market system proponents claim that pure capitalism eliminates this exploitable mechanism. Of course, many disagree.

 

[Koldo]

Is greed inherently bad? As a proponent of filthy capitalism myself, I say greed is good. It is what motivates people to create wealth.

Is wealth a fixed resource? I don’t think so.

Greed is bad when others are starving and you have more than you will ever need.

 

[sayak83]

I do disagree with your third sentence.

I say it is paradoxical for a reason, because it doesn’t make sense. But that’s just my opinion and I’ll explain why.

The mechanism in which wealth is best distributed I am sure we disagree on. I believe the best method at the creation of wealth is a completely anarchistic capitalist system. By virtue of there being more wealth created, there is more to go around.

Also, the alternative is government. Government provides a mechanism in which the distribution of wealth can be abused, because ultimately the wealth has to be accumulated by the government in order for them to distribute it. The free market system proponents claim that pure capitalism eliminates this exploitable mechanism. Of course, many disagree.

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.

 

[Kathryn]

Elect a better one.
And take away some of the responsibilities. Put projects which cost more than, say, $1,000,000 on a ballot to democratically decide if they should be done, like Switzerland does it.

Everything will cost 1.2 million dollars then.

 

[an anarchist]

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.

Eliminating the human factor when it comes to the distribution of wealth is an interesting idea. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but that is what I read.

Suppose an AI fairly and most best distributes the wealth. I think that’d be interesting and should be considered.

Whether or not I think the AI has a right to distribute my wealth is irrelevant.

Even if I think the pure free market system is possibly the only moral economic system, it may be impossible to ever achieve due to its negative perception.

I have no scruples. If the immoral option is the feasible option and it works, I’d support it.

 

[Koldo]

Merit of the products or goods made by the companies. If companies are not being outcompeted by new companies offering better or more relevant goods, why do the top companies change so quickly?

Buying the competitor's companies, lobbying for laws that benefit me and screw the competitors, being better at tax evasion, making better advertisements, paying very low wages to my employees or even making use of slave labor, reducing the durability/quality of a product in a hidden manner to reduce the price, destroying the environment whenever it is convenient ($$$), violating labor laws or circumventing them.... And so on... are all practices that make a product sell more, and they all either involve the product not being any better at all or harming the community.

 

[PureX]

As usual when it comes to these things, you are wildly wrong.

A tree =/= paper
Paper is a product of value. It has to be created. The creation of wealth is a conscious action that can be observed throughout the entirety of history. Mankind has more wealth today than we did a thousand years ago.

Quite simple to understand if you think about it.

Anarchy is not the idealistic jibberish you proclaim it to be, and capitalist greed is not ambition. Also, the actual value added by any economic system is in the low single digit percentile annually. So the big lie that the wealth being piled up and abused by the rich did not come from the pockets of everyone else is likewise, just silly idealical jibberish.

 

[an anarchist]

Anarchy is not the idealistic jibberish you proclaim it to be, and capitalist greed is not ambition. Also, the actual value added by any economic system is in the low single digit percentile annually. So the big lie that the wealth being piled up and abused by the rich did not come from the pockets of everyone else is likewise, just silly idealical jibberish.

What a bunch of silly jibberish

 

[PureX]

I have no idea, but where I come from, one of the main motivations of working is leaving something behind for your children, and of course giving them a decent upbringing.

Socialism would achieve that goal FAR better than capitalist greed.

Again, why would anyone ever improve their products if they have a monopoly on production??!!

Because it's the socially responsible thing to do. Capitalists and their sicophants can't understand this, because it's socially responsible and socially minded. While capitalism is selfish and competitive.

 

[wellwisher]

Merit of the products or goods made by the companies. If companies are not being outcompeted by new companies offering better or more relevant goods, why do the top companies change so quickly?

Say a new company invents a new product that the market likes. It won't be long before copycats present their own version and start to take away market share. One needs to stay proactive, and start thinking the next generation, to be one step ahead.

If you make a product, that is made well, and also designed to last, like an iPhone, once everyone has one, business can go flat. An iPhone can be updated for 10 years, which can easily saturate the market if consumers wait to buy until broken. So you still need to be proactive, and build a new model each year, to get people to buy, even before it is obsolete; market for snob appeal. This is somewhat wasteful, but the free market is about consumer preferences and if there is a demand, for the state of the art, you also need to satisfy that.

Government is not set up to be proactive and efficient. They do have to compete and they do not have make to profit to stay alive. They can stay in debt and give nothing but poor quality and lack luster performance; sloppy monopoly. It may be better to shift many of these jobs to the free market to compete, like the US Postal service and UPS and FEDX. For example, Super Markets can pay their corporate taxes directly with food voucher to the needy, cutting out the middle men. They can price at half way between retail and wholesale, so is is cheaper for the tax payer and also allows some profit. The poor have a well stocked store to do shopping.

I heard that Trump has been talking with Elon Musk. He wants Musk to lead an audit of the US Government, and make suggestion how to tighter the ship, so it has better quality, better performance, and cheaper costs. No more sloppy monopoly They want to make it more like the free market, so it can earn the taxes and make it worth the while for citizen consumers of Government goods and serviced, to want to pay their taxes. People do not mind spending, but not if over priced defective crap as the only offering we get for taxes.

Trump made his living in the Hospitality industry where the consumer is treated like a VIP. I would like the government to be that way and appreciate all the money spent so the tax payers do not mind coming back and spending more. The over lord mentality is wrong and is due to the psychology of the sloppy monopoly, who does not have to go the extra mile, and can even fall short, the half mile.

 

[an anarchist]

While capitalism is selfish and competitive.

Opponents of capitalism say we need government control of the economy because people are selfish. I say we need capitalism because people are selfish. Capitalism takes this into account and utilizes it. It is the economic system that capitalizes and thrives on human greed.

 

[Augustus]

Tribalism in the literal sense of the word, concerned with the own tribe (family).

In your view is this a bad thing?

If so, what do you think should replace people’s primary concern for their own family?

 

[Kfox]

It is not what happens when the employees also have an active role at directing the future of the company.

How is it different?

Source? How does not knowing what a CEO wants entails not knowing how to run a company?

The CEO is supposed to know the best way to get the company to make a profit. A typical line worker is not going to know this, and his employment should not be based on him knowing this.

Same goes for CEO.

Then the CEO gets fired for having bad ideas. The line worker does not.

But many are not.

The same people should be making the decisions regardless of if they are difficult or easy.

 

[Kfox]

Qasem Soleimani comes to mind.

No idea who that is, but there have been countless totalitarian dictators who were basically gang leaders.