The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Revoltingest]

Not sure where that comes from.

Observations of people.

Heyo is talking about taxation (= giving money to the government to spend on education, health, public services, etc). He isn't talking about the rich having to give HIM money.

That's OK.

 

[Heyo]

Who are you talking about when you say "the exploited"?
Are you talking about the customers, or poor chinese workers in swet shops?

There are multiple targets of exploitation. 1. Your workers. That's how Jeff Bezos got rich. 2. Your customers. That's how Bill Gates got rich. 3. Your suppliers. That's how the Albrecht brothers got rich.
The principle is always the same. Your corporation has to produce a surplus higher than interest rates. Someone has to pay that gap between resources, labour and retail prices that you are going to rake in as dividend.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Let's presume 700 billions would be enough. If you cut the spending by 15% in every line, that would increase the poverty bar because it would involve cutting the funding to social programs. What would you cut then?

They would not need the programs if we spent $700B to give them.

They are responsible in the sense that there is a causal relationship between employers paying low wages, when they could afford to pay higher, and people remaining poor. You can't tell me with a straight face that people paying low wages has absolutely nothing to do with poverty.

Is it a company's responsibility to pay people a certain amount or is it the individual's responsibility to find a job that pays what they require? Companies will follow the law, blame politicians for minimum wages being too low. There are some people living in poverty of their own choices and refuse to change. The ones that are not or want to change we should help.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are multiple targets of exploitation. 1. Your workers. That's how Jeff Bezos got rich. 2. Your customers. That's how Bill Gates got rich. 3. Your suppliers. That's how the Albrecht brothers got rich.
The principle is always the same. Your corporation has to produce a surplus higher than interest rates. Someone has to pay that gap between resources, labour and retail prices that you are going to rake in as dividend.

"Exploitation" is a word with much baggage.
To liberals, it's evil. But they apply it selectively.
To be exploited by capitalists is wrong. But they're
silent about exploitation by government, especially
when it's socialist.
The real issue is which exploitation is good, &
which is bad. There should be fair evaluation
based on comparison of results.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The problem is that even if I believe in you that you don't see life as a game we are still left with the problem that having rules being applied to everyone equally only constitutes a standard for fairness in games. Since we are not talking about a competition, why would you use that standard?

I am not sure what your point is. Should there be laws that only apply to some and not all? That is unjust.

 

[Heyo]

The real issue is which exploitation is good, &
which is bad. There should be fair evaluation
based on comparison of results.

I don't think there is ever "good exploitation" of humans. Some "exploitation" may be considered good, if you even call it exploitation. A Dyson fan "exploits" the Bernoulli effect, that would be "good" exploitation.
A farmer exploits the land, and we have just entered the twilight. Is "scorched Earth" farming OK? Robbing the land of its fruit and nutrients and move on when it isn't profitable any more?
I think of exploitation as getting a value you didn't pay (enough) for.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think there is ever "good exploitation" of humans. Some "exploitation" may be considered good, if you even call it exploitation. A Dyson fan "exploits" the Bernoulli effect, that would be "good" exploitation.
A farmer exploits the land, and we have just entered the twilight. Is "scorched Earth" farming OK? Robbing the land of its fruit and nutrients and move on when it isn't profitable any more?
I think of exploitation as getting a value you didn't pay (enough) for.

If you see only a negative connotation for "exploit",
then those who complain about it in capitalist systems
without applying it to socialism apply a double standard.

This brings the thread back to the forum it's in, Psychology.
Socialist fanboys exhibit cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted...

Paradigms[edit]​

There are four theoretic paradigms of cognitive dissonance, the mental stress people experienced when exposed to information that is inconsistent with their beliefs, ideals or values: Belief Disconfirmation, Induced Compliance, Free Choice, and Effort Justification, which respectively explain what happens after a person acts inconsistently, relative to their intellectual perspectives; what happens after a person makes decisions and what are the effects upon a person who has expended much effort to achieve a goal. Common to each paradigm of cognitive-dissonance theory is the tenet: People invested in a given perspective shall—when confronted with contrary evidence—expend great effort to justify retaining the challenged perspective.[19]

 

[Koldo]

They would not need the programs if we spent $700B to give them.

I am not convinced that's the case. If anything, it sounds far-fetched that cutting the programs and replacing them with money would instantly solve poverty. If anything, it sounds like the poverty line would be set higher.

Is it a company's responsibility to pay people a certain amount or is it the individual's responsibility to find a job that pays what they require? Companies will follow the law, blame politicians for minimum wages being too low. There are some people living in poverty of their own choices and refuse to change. The ones that are not or want to change we should help.

Do you mean you derive your ethics from the law? If not, then what is ethical about doing strictly what is legally mandatory?

 

[Koldo]

I am not sure what your point is. Should there be laws that only apply to some and not all? That is unjust.

It is not necessarily unfair. It depends on the justification as to why that is being done. Let me provide an example: food stamps. Is it unfair that only poor people are eligible?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I am not convinced that's the case. If anything, it sounds far-fetched that cutting the programs and replacing them with money would instantly solve poverty. If anything, it sounds like the poverty line would be set higher.

Why would it increase the poverty line if we increased people below it to above it?

Do you mean you derive your ethics from the law? If not, then what is ethical about doing strictly what is legally mandatory?

No. Following laws is part of being ethical and moral. If you think companies should pay more than they do then this is an issue for politicians to resolve not CEO's. Whether you or I think a company should pay more has no bearing on what they decide, we can only require them to follow the law or convince them to pay more in some way.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It is not necessarily unfair. It depends on the justification as to why that is being done. Let me provide an example: food stamps. Is it unfair that only poor people are eligible?

Everyone is eligible if they meet the criteria, right? No one is excluded. It would be unjust of only one race were eligible etc.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

Because it shouldn't be touchable.
It is wrong, imo, to rely on the government to take someone else's wealth to rely on your own wealth.

The government ought to be in the business of encouraging wealth makers not wealth takers. The more wealth makers that exist the better for everyone. Adequate taxation is enough taxes for the government to handle it needs for the business of running the government.

More than that I see as theft. The government is stealing wealth that somebody created. No one had to convince that this is morally wrong. That someone may benefit from this theft make it any more moral.

 

[siti]

Wow, you really weren't trying very hard at all, were you.

Why would we "divvy up" the increased tax revenue among everyone else?

Well somebody is not trying very hard. I did not say "divvy up" the revenue among everyone else, I said divvy it up among the 72 million Americans who are so poor they cannot afford to pay income tax.

 

[PureX]

Well somebody is not trying very hard. I did not say "divvy up" the revenue among everyone else, I said divvy it up among the 72 million Americans who are so poor they cannot afford to pay income tax.

That won’t help most of them long term. The help they need isn’t a lump of money. It’s a real job with a real income. And that requires a home, a car, a phone, clean clothes, job training, basic health care, and a realistic sense of hope.

To do all that requires a systemic change away from a greed based selfish motive to an inclusive, collective well being based motive. When we strip the millionaires and billionaires of all that excess wealth, we will also be stripping them of their grip on total economic and social control. And then we can the use that money to jump-start changing or government and social policy to reflect a more inclusive, cooperative kind of decision-making.

 

[siti]

That won’t help most of them long term.

Exactly my point!

I'm still waiting for a more specific explanation as to how exactly you propose to set the limit - so far, what you have is that $29,999,999 is OK, but $1 more than that is "greedy", "selfish" and excessive wealth. I am wondering how you came to determine where exactly the line should be drawn. You did say it would be "easy" to determine I recall.

 

[PureX]

Exactly my point!

I'm still waiting for a more specific explanation as to how exactly you propose to set the limit - so far, what you have is that $29,999,999 is OK, but $1 more than that is "greedy", "selfish" and excessive wealth. I am wondering how you came to determine where exactly the line should be drawn. You did say it would be "easy" to determine I recall.

Set the limit at whatever amount will provide a lifetime of safe, comfortable living. Because none of us will ever need or deserve any more then that. And if we were satisfied with that, everyone else could have it, too. Not all to exactly the same degree, but within functional reason. I don’t know why you think this would be so difficult.

 

[siti]

I don’t know why you think this would be so difficult.

I don't know - maybe because nobody who supports the idea has given a straight answer?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know - maybe because nobody who supports the idea has given a straight answer?

...or demonstrated how it has ever worked well.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Would you prefer that USA emulate
the Chinese governmental structure?

Not sure it would work much better in the short term, American politicians are too corrupt and motivated by self interest.

It is interesting that it was only about the time Xi came to power that there was a major purge of corruption in China, that the whole American spy network was discovered in Beijing and a large number of spy's were exposed, these were found all through the administration and high party offices. Ever since they were either executed or imprisoned, America has found it near impossible to replace them. That is according to American reports.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html

 

[PureX]

I don't know - maybe because nobody who supports the idea has given a straight answer?

You don't want an answer. You just want to pretend there isn't one.