Let's Debate Inequality

[muhammad_isa]

Guess who actually opposes high employment rates? Capitalists (as in capital owners)

Of course they do .. they are more interested in seeing their wealth hold its value
than the plight of the unemployed.

They even massage the figures to disguise the fact, by moving them off unemployment benefits .. when it suits them, of course..

In November 1979, the Thatcher government in UK raised interest rates to 17% in order to tackle inflation. This harmed manufacturing industry and exports, but did eventually have the desired effect on inflation.
- BBC Archives -

 

[Koldo]

I disagree! If I agree to sell my labor for $X per hr, as long as I am paid $X for each hour I've worked, I am getting the fruits of my labor

No. That's you selling your labor, not the fruits of your labor in themselves. Else, there would be no reason to hire you.
If I hire you, it is because I think you are generating more value to me than what I am paying for, else I wouldn't hire you. And it is this full value that is the fruit of your labor.

Labors create nothing! If somebody gives me a bunch of wood, bricks, and cement, to construct a house, did I create that house? No; I've built/assembled it; I've used pre-made materials to assembly that house.

Redundant distinction.

When that house is sold, don't cha think the people who provided me the pre-made materials is entitled to some of the money that house sold for?

Depends on your arrangement, but that's certainly one possible way.

So I have the option of being satisfied with less? You call that an option? Going by that logic, slaves are not forced to work, they could always choose the option of being beaten or killed for refusing.

Completely different situation. Being satisfied with less pay is no way similar to being beaten for refusing to work.

 

[Kfox]

No. That's you selling your labor, not the fruits of your labor in themselves.

Though I don’t agree with your definition of “fruits of labor” let’s continue this conversation under the assumption that your definition is correct. In that case I don’t think anybody is entitled to all of the fruits of their labor. Do you agree with me?

Else, there would be no reason to hire you.

No; if you are entitled to all the fruits of your labor, nobody would have a reason to hire you because your pay comes from you doing everything yourself, and selling the product yourself

If I hire you, it is because I think you are generating more value to me than what I am paying for, else I wouldn't hire you. And it is this full value that is the fruit of your labor.

So using my previous house scenario, do you think a labor’s pay should come from the entire sale of the house? From an agreed upon wage, or something else; please explain.

Depends on your arrangement, but that's certainly one possible way.

So you agree the laborer is not entitled to all of the fruits of his labor? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Completely different situation. Being satisfied with less pay is no way similar to being beaten for refusing to work.

Though one is much worse than the other, I agree they can both be compared because they are both examples of being forced to do something

 

[Koldo]

Though I don’t agree with your definition of “fruits of labor” let’s continue this conversation under the assumption that your definition is correct. In that case I don’t think anybody is entitled to all of the fruits of their labor. Do you agree with me?

Yes. That's exactly why I don't think of taxation as slavery.

Though one is much worse than the other, I agree they can both be compared because they are both examples of being forced to do something

If you are going down this road, then I am going to say that life is a string of things you are forced to do (eating, sleeping, brushing teeth...).

 

[Madsaac]

I think if you want to lessen inequality, you should follow this. No extremes on either side. Simple

Centre-left politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kfox]

Yes. That's exactly why I don't think of taxation as slavery.

No; I'm not talking about taxes. If the only way you can build that house is by getting bricks, cement, and wood from someone else, don't cha think they are entitled to the fruits of their labor used to acquire those things?

If you are going down this road, then I am going to say that life is a string of things you are forced to do (eating, sleeping, brushing teeth...).

Nobody is forcing you to eat, sleep, or brush your teeth; you choose to do those things. That's not slavery.

 

[Heyo]

Interesting. But what on Earth does any of this have to do with the question I've asked?

At the time of 2000, there existed a global wealth. 40% of that wealth was captured by 1% of people. Which means that the remaining 99% of people had to share the remaining 60% of wealth.
It's the answer to how wealth can be captured.

 

[Heyo]

Because theft is not part of capitalism.

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.

 

[Kfox]

At the time of 2000, there existed a global wealth. 40% of that wealth was captured by 1% of people. Which means that the remaining 99% of people had to share the remaining 60% of wealth.
It's the answer to how wealth can be captured.

Are you under the impression if that 1% had less wealth, let's say like only 20% instead of 40%, that everybody else would be 30% richer? IOW if Bill Gates, and Elon Musk were not rich, that YOU would be richer than you are today? If so, please explain how this works, explain how their success prevents you from being successful.

 

[Kfox]

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 disagree. Just because a person might be honest and fair does not mean they can't be a capitalist. Capitalism does not require evil any more than being human requires you to be evil.

 

[Heyo]

Are you under the impression if that 1% had less wealth, let's say like only 20% instead of 40%, that everybody else would be 30% richer? IOW if Bill Gates, and Elon Musk were not rich, that YOU would be richer than you are today? If so, please explain how this works, explain how their success prevents you from being successful.

You are mixing the times again. What is now, has little to do with what will be tomorrow.
(At least in the sense we are discussing. Of course, a rich person has also more resources to be successful in the future than I have. There is no level playing field. But first you have to understand what wealth inequality is.)

 

[Kfox]

You are mixing the times again.

No, this conversation is about what is going on today

What is now, has little to do with what will be tomorrow.
(At least in the sense we are discussing..)

What we are discussing is this idea that there is only a limited amount of wealth to go around, and the more the rich person has, the less for everybody else. State your case why you believe this to be true.

 

[Koldo]

No; I'm not talking about taxes. If the only way you can build that house is by getting bricks, cement, and wood from someone else, don't cha think they are entitled to the fruits of their labor used to acquire those things?

But I am talking about taxes. That's how we got here. They are not entitled to the fruits of their labor per se, not anymore than you are for building the house yourself.

Nobody is forcing you to eat, sleep, or brush your teeth; you choose to do those things. That's not slavery.

Life is forcing us to do those things, else we die.

 

[Heyo]

No, this conversation is about what is going on today

What we are discussing is this idea that there is only a limited amount of wealth to go around, and the more the rich person has, the less for everybody else. State your case why you believe this to be true.

I have (and others have, too, and they have shown evidence).
If we have just harvested an apple tree, our combined wealth at the moment is 100 apples. If you take 90, I can only take 10.
If you can't understand that, I'm out of explanations.

 

[Kfox]

But I am talking about taxes. That's how we got here.

I don’t have a problem with taxes, my disagreement was based on what you suggested on post #153 where you said someone is greedy if they have too much money and refuse to give it away

They are not entitled to the fruits of their labor per se, not anymore than you are for building the house yourself.

So would you agree with me, that to be paid an agreed upon wage or price is fair?

 

[Kfox]

I have (and others have, too, and they have shown evidence).

Not to me you haven't

If we have just harvested an apple tree, our combined wealth at the moment is 100 apples. If you take 90, I can only take 10.
If you can't understand that, I'm out of explanations.

How does you harvesting 100 apples prevent someone else from harvesting apples?

 

[Heyo]

Not to me you haven't

Poor analogy. There are a limited amount of apples in existence. Wealth is not limited. If you believe it is, explain the limitation.

How do you measure wealth?

 

[an anarchist]

How do you measure wealth?

Wealth is subjective as different people place different values on the same things.

Just randomly interjecting I am behind on the thread.

Edit: the free market is the system that takes into account the subjective nature of wealth.

 

[an anarchist]

How does you harvesting 100 apples prevent someone else from harvesting apples?

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.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Wealth is subjective as different people place different values on the same things.

I think the reference is one of economic assets .. currency underlines global exchange,
with the G7 ensuring 'world stability' by propping up currencies through joint 'monetary policies'.

It is usurious, and perpetuates the dominance of WWar winners.