The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[siti]

How about we poll the American people...

OK...but...we already asked a few on RF and the responses have ranged from a "mere" 10 million to a "whopping" 1 billion...even you have given a range of answers including as I recall 20 million, 50 million and now 40 million...

...but notwithstanding a 10,000% margin of error in setting an appropriate limit...

Do you honestly believe the American people would vote for a 100% tax on wealth above 40million?

 

[siti]

At what age should people be able to drive? At what age should they be able to consent to sex? At what age should they be able to drink alcoholic beverages? How big should the income tax be for someone that earned 1 million in a year? How many years should a criminal spend in jail?

There are laws for all those and they all rely, some more than others, on highly arbitrary decisions. Setting an arbitrary line is nothing new.

Did you mean to post this as an example in the whataboutism thread?

 

[PureX]

OK...but...we already asked a few on RF and the responses have ranged from a "mere" 10 million to a "whopping" 1 billion...even you have given a range of answers including as I recall 20 million, 50 million and now 40 million...

Well the billion response was clearly not serious, so a range between 10 and 50 million would be what I'd expect. So setting it at 40 million sound about right.

See, it wasn't that hard after all. And we could always change it if conditions require it.

...but notwithstanding a 10,000% margin of error in setting an appropriate limit...

Do you honestly believe the American people would vote for a 100% tax on wealth above 40million?

I wasn't calling for a national referendum vote, I was asking for an opinion pole. But I do think a huge majority of Americans would be in favor of such a tax. Especially when it came with tax relief and critical aid at the lower ends of the income scale. Where almost everyone actually lives.

And I am noticing that you offer no justification at all for NOT doing it that doesn't presume selfishness and greed to be a virtue.

 

[Audie]

It might surprise many people that there are eight minor parties in China

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3136835/communist-party-not-chinas-only-political-party-there-are-eight.

Talking politics is not illegal. In China but organising against the CCP certainly would be asking for trouble.

Depends whats meant by " talking politics".

The USA has ftm, quite a history of politics-
talk being injurious to the individual's wellbeing.

 

[Koldo]

Did you mean to post this as an example in the whataboutism thread?

No. I am defending the use of an arbitrary line and pointing out other examples of where it is also used to explain how they are completely in line with how we, as a species, have historically approached many different situations, and to show there is no novelty.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Depends whats meant by " talking politics".

The USA has ftm, quite a history of politics-
talk being injurious to the individual's wellbeing.

By talking politics is what vast numbers of westerners do every day but is mostly just chatter.
There would not be the equivalent of the daily two party nasty infights in China.

Conspiring against the government is dangerous in any country.

 

[MikeF]

How about we poll the American people and ask them how much money they feel one person would need to live their whole adult life in comfort and safely and with a reasonable degree of superfluous spending money. And let's say they come up with the figure of 20 million dollars as their average response. So we double that amount to include the majority of outliers in the poll, and we set that as our limit on personal wealth. We can accumulate 40 million dollars, but no more. We can continue to chase after more money if we want, but we can't keep it. And we can't own assets beyond that amount.

Can anyone explain to why we should allow any one person to accumulate more than this? And do so without presuming greed to be a virtue?

How would such caps affect valuation? In other words, things only have a value, a particular cost, because we all agree that it has that value or cost. If you get heavy handed in the market, and most of the value in the market is imaginary value, if you make dramatic changes to the system, what is to say that you don't just destroy, at the stroke of a pen, all the many billions you are trying to capture and give to other people?

 

[MikeF]

At what age should people be able to drive? At what age should they be able to consent to sex? At what age should they be able to drink alcoholic beverages? How big should the income tax be for someone that earned 1 million in a year? How many years should a criminal spend in jail?

There are laws for all those and they all rely, some more than others, on highly arbitrary decisions. Setting an arbitrary line is nothing new.

Other than the fact that not all arbitrary lines have the same real consequences.

More importantly, however, is the notion that your examples constitute truly arbitrary lines. Are you saying that there is absolutely no rationale for drawing any of the lines you reference?

 

[Revoltingest]

Talking politics is not illegal.

While it's legal to discuss politics in agreement
with government, venturing outside that narrow
range is largely illegal.
Ask @Audie....our resident expert on life in China.

 

[PureX]

How would such caps affect valuation? In other words, things only have a value, a particular cost, because we all agree that it has that value or cost. If you get heavy handed in the market, and most of the value in the market is imaginary value, if you make dramatic changes to the system, what is to say that you don't just destroy, at the stroke of a pen, all the many billions you are trying to capture and give to other people?

Stuff is stuff, and money is not stuff. The amount of stuff in the world and the amount of that stuff we each need to live does not change significantly just because someone can't pile up more that 40+ million dollars in money or assets. Why would it?

All it means is that one person can't control more stuff than they could possibly need or rightfully want in their lifetime. Leaving the rest of the stuff available for others to access and control.

The whole issue here is control. And disabling individuals and groups from gaining wildly excessive control over the stuff we all need and want to live a reasonably comfortable and safe life, and that we are all jointly producing, and thereby deserving of.

 

[Audie]

While it's legal to discuss politics in agreement
with government, venturing outside that narrow
range is largely illegal.
Ask @Audie....our resident expert on life in China.

Im not going to get real specific
about cause and effec.t

 

[Audie]

By talking politics is what vast numbers of westerners do every day but is mostly just chatter.
There would not be the equivalent of the daily two party nasty infights in China.

Conspiring against the government is dangerous in any country.

What is considered actionable is
what varies so much.

Here there is no equivalent at all to the left / right
warfare in usa.

 

[Revoltingest]

Stuff is stuff, and money is not stuff. The amount of stuff in the world and the amount of that stuff we each need to live does not change significantly just because someone can't pile up more that 40 million dollars in money or assets. Why would it?

All it means is that one person can't control more stuff than they could possibly need or rightfully want in their lifetime. Leaving the rest of the stuff available for others to access and control.

The whole issue here is control. And disabling individuals and groups from gaining wildly excessive control over the stuff we all need and want to live a reasonably comfortable and safe life, and that we are all jointly producing, and thereby deserving of.

Money is a tool of resource allocation.
Every economic system ever devised uses
resource allocation. So money, the tool,
isn't a problem at all. The issues are
about allocating available resources.

 

[Audie]

Money is a tool of resource allocation.
Every economic system ever devised uses
resource allocation. So money, the tool,
isn't a problem at all. The issues are
about allocating available resources.

Yep and even our benighted philosophers
have far more stuff than they need, living as yhey
do in ease and material splendor comparrd to
half the world.

 

[MikeF]

Stuff is stuff, and money is not stuff. The amount of stuff in the world and the amount of that stuff we each need to live does not change significantly just because someone can't pile up more that 40 million dollars in money or assets. Why would it?

All it means is that one person can't control more stuff than they could possibly need or rightfully want in their lifetime. Leaving the rest of the stuff available for others to access and control.

The whole issue here is control. And disabling individuals and groups from gaining wildly excessive control over the stuff we all need and want to live a reasonably comfortable and safe life, and that we are all jointly producing, and thereby deserving of.

So, someone comes up with a product that lots of folks want, say an iPhone, and that someone invests in the capital required to produce and sell the product, won't the limitations on wealth limit the production capacity of the phone? If demand dramatically exceeds capacity to produce and the price goes way up, well now they have to scale back production so as not to have income exceed wealth restrictions. Oh, and by the way, if you say that the iPhone company should not raise prices in response to demand, but sell them at a morally small percentage above cost, the iPhones will then be resold on the black market, at the higher market cost, and now money that could have been used by our clever iPhone inventor to either make more iPhones or invest in other clever products is hamstrung.

I also don't think you are being imaginative enough to envision all the ways in which your cap on wealth might be circumvented. If Real Estate is one of the larges portions of a family or individuals wealth, what if, instead of paying an individual enough to buy a home commensurate with their economic contribution because of wealth cap limitations, the company itself buys homes for their executives and thus the wealth associated with ownership of the property does not lie with the executive nor subject to the executives wealth limitations.

Human behavior and supply and demand forces are always going to be at play. The more dramatic the changes you make, the harder it will be to anticipate all the ramifications that will result from the change.

I am not say leave everything as it is today. I am all for working to make things better. I'm saying that what might appear to be an easy simple fix may in fact make things worse.

 

[Koldo]

Other than the fact that not all arbitrary lines have the same real consequences.

Agreed. Jail time is probably the most severe case.

More importantly, however, is the notion that your examples constitute truly arbitrary lines. Are you saying that there is absolutely no rationale for drawing any of the lines you reference?

Depends on what you mean by that. Sometimes the legislators don't even bother to explain why a given number was chosen. Other times, when the rationale is exposed, the same rationale could also be applied to some other number.

 

[MikeF]

Depends on what you mean by that. Sometimes the legislators don't even bother to explain why a given number was chosen. Other times, when the rationale is exposed, the same rationale could also be applied to some other number.

What I mean is, there is acknowledgement that there is need for *some* number, some limitation. In the case of legal driving age, I think it is safe to say there is strong agreement that 8 year old's should not be licensed to drive cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, etc. So, where to draw the line? Not everyone matures at the same rate, or in the same way, or in some cases ever. It then becomes a matter of compromise, trying to capture as many people who shouldn't be licensed to operate a vehicle against unduly denying those who can be licensed in a reasonable and cost effective way.

In other words, the number that is settled on is not done arbitrarily, as opposed to what you were implying.

Of course, I'm not saying that this process always results in the optimal number being chosen, or that these decisions are always made with all the necessary information and a complete understanding of all the factors involved (like with this wealth cap idea). I'm just saying these lines are drawn with some rationale and not arbitrarily or on a whim.

 

[Koldo]

So, someone comes up with a product that lots of folks want, say an iPhone, and that someone invests in the capital required to produce and sell the product, won't the limitations on wealth limit the production capacity of the phone?

If there is a limit on how much wealth a company can amass, and if there aren't other people interested in investing together, and if the State doesn't want to invest together, yes.

I also don't think you are being imaginative enough to envision all the ways in which your cap on wealth might be circumvented. If Real Estate is one of the larges portions of a family or individuals wealth, what if, instead of paying an individual enough to buy a home commensurate with their economic contribution because of wealth cap limitations, the company itself buys homes for their executives and thus the wealth associated with ownership of the property does not lie with the executive nor subject to the executives wealth limitations.

Fraud. It would be illegal.

 

[MikeF]

Fraud. It would be illegal.

Not in the American system unless specifically proscribed. Companies own and lease cars that they make available to their employees, all expenses covered. Employers cover healthcare insurance for employees which does not register as income to be taxed by the IRS.

 

[Koldo]

What I mean is, there is acknowledgement that there is need for *some* number, some limitation. In the case of legal driving age, I think it is safe to say there is strong agreement that 8 year old's should not be licensed to drive cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, etc. So, where to draw the line? Not everyone matures at the same rate, or in the same way, or in some cases ever. It then becomes a matter of compromise, trying to capture as many people who shouldn't be licensed to operate a vehicle against unduly denying those who can be licensed in a reasonable and cost effective way.

In other words, the number that is settled on is not done arbitrarily, as opposed to what you were implying.

Of course, I'm not saying that this process always results in the optimal number being chosen, or that these decisions are always made with all the necessary information and a complete understanding of all the factors involved (like with this wealth cap idea). I'm just saying these lines are drawn with some rationale and not arbitrarily or on a whim.

Context is key here: What @siti is demanding is not just the underlying rationale behind setting a limit on someone's wealth, but rather justification for picking any given number in specific. In other words, the establishment of an optimal number (as you call it) is being demanded before the enactment of limitarianism.

The problem, however, is that specific numbers set by law are generally arbitrary even when the underlying reasoning behind the law is not arbitrary.