The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[PureX]

Money is a tool of resource allocation.

Money is an abstract representation for 'stuff'.

Every economic system ever devised uses
resource allocation. So money, the tool,
isn't a problem at all

Money is not the problem. Except that under capitalism, money = control of the stuff. And it's the unbalanced, predatory, and undeserved control of stuff that everyone creates and everyone needs to survive and thrive in the world that is a very big problem.

The issues are
about allocating available resources.

Not "resources"; STUFF. The stuff that we all need to survive and thrive in the modern world. Products and services that we are all doing our part to generate and maintain. And the more of it we allow to pile up under the control of people who do not need it and do not deserve to be in control of it, the less of it there is for everyone that does need it and does deserve their fair share of it. So the question becomes HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? And are we going to be wise enough and fair-minded enough to put a stopto people amassing absurdly huge piles of the stuff because they have been poisoned by greed and selfishness and cannot be satiated? Or are we so stupid and selfish, ourselves, that we just can't bring ourselves to put a stop to this insane greed?

 

[Koldo]

Not in the American system unless specifically proscribed.

That's the idea. It is impossible to set an actual limit on personal wealth if one can bypass it so easily.

 

[PureX]

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?

No. It just means there will need to be more than one investor. If it's such a great idea, that shouldn't be a problem. After all, there are still millionaires and wanna-be millionaires a-plenty around looking to invest for profit.

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.

You are confusing business wealth caps with individual wealth caps. Both would easily be solves by spreading the profits around, or by using them to expand production.

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.

Rape and murder are against the law, but they still occur. Nevertheless, the laws are important to have and to maintain. When the iPhone becomes an indispensable tool for surviving in the modern world, provisions should be made to make sure everyone can afford one.

I also don't think you are being imaginative enough to envision all the ways in which your cap on wealth might be circumvented.

Yes, greed never sleeps, and criminals will always be among us. But again, this is no reason to abandon setting and enforcing sensible laws meant to protect us from each other. And in this case from each other's excessive greed.

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.

We have tried that in the past, and it immediately became a form of slavery. Greed is relentless, remorseless, and insatiable. And we learned the hard way not to give it the power of providing anyone shelter or it will be used to abuse and exploit everyone under it's roof.

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.

Change requires courage, and the desire to do things better.

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.

Or it might in fact be a life-changing improvement for millions upon millions of human beings. And all it cost was our no longer obeying the excessive greed of 2% of the population.

 

[Revoltingest]

Money is an abstract representation for 'stuff'.

All forms of resource allocation are abstract.
All economic systems allocate resources somehow.

 

[PureX]

That's the idea. It is impossible to set an actual limit on personal wealth if one can bypass it so easily.

Right, so let's make and enforce laws that stop people from bypassing the intended limitations. I'm not sure what the objection is, here. Of course some people will want to break the law, and some will try. But this is true of every law ever written. Yet it's certainly not a reason not to set or impose the rule of law.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If I take away food stamps from someone and replace it with money, in what significant way has the situation of that person changed?

No, you replace the food stamps with enough money to be above the poverty line. That would by definition end poverty.

Following the law is not necessarily ethical nor moral. Depending on the law, it might actually be immoral to follow it. A very simple example is owning a slave back when it was legal to do so. Were the slave owners responsible for slavery? If I am following your rationale correctly, you would say they were not because they were acting in accordance to the law.

Of course following immoral laws is not moral. However, that was not what I was talking about, I was talking about do you follow laws in general or disregard them when they don't suit you? It is moral to follow laws that are moral but you don't particularly like. Not following laws just because you don't like them is not moral in my opinion.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then there is nothing unfair about putting a limit on how much wealth someone can amass.

Sure it would be unfair. A government program is to help people who are in need. Limiting people wealth penalizes people for doing something they are free to do. It is morally right to help people in need, it is not moral to confiscate money from people just because you think they should not have it.

What would you cap wealth at? How would you take it from people?

 

[Koldo]

No, you replace the food stamps with enough money to be above the poverty line. That would by definition end poverty.

If I replaced every single social program with granting money directly, how would the financial situation of that person change de facto? If nothing would change, then they would be the same economically. If they are just as screwed as before, why wouldn't I accordingly rise up the poverty line, since it is intended to designate people that don't live a decent lifestyle due to their economic condition and it is no longer functioning as a parameter to detect poverty?

Of course following immoral laws is not moral. However, that was not what I was talking about, I was talking about do you follow laws in general or disregard them when they don't suit you? It is moral to follow laws that are moral but you don't particularly like. Not following laws just because you don't like them is not moral in my opinion.

But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I was saying that we can't judge whether someone is causally responsible for something (such as employers that are causally responsible for keeping employees in poverty when they could pay more) strictly by adherence to the law.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

W

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.

What a person earns is more than just a salary. In most countries. All benefits and payments in kind are taxable, even company cars.

Manufacturing companies would continue to produce what ever the cap on the owners income. Just as they do now. However there would be more cash available to pay their workers and other share holders..

 

[Koldo]

Sure it would be unfair. A government program is to help people who are in need. Limiting people wealth penalizes people for doing something they are free to do.

Who said they are free to amass unlimited ammounts of wealth? If the law, change the law. If some random person, ignore it.

It is morally right to help people in need, it is not moral to confiscate money from people just because you think they should not have it.

Except that we help people in need by confiscating money from people that we think that shouldn't have it.

What would you cap wealth at?

I think of it as a technical aspect that is best served by hiring a team of economists that will evaluate how much money is necessary to live a decent live overall and how to reduce the overall impact of such a measure.

How would you take it from people?

Taxation.

 

[Nakosis]

Manufacturing companies would continue to produce what ever the cap on the owners income. Just as they do now. However there would be more cash available to pay their workers and other share holders..

That would certainly put a damper on any new business creation. At that point you are basically providing an employment service for the government. Might as well just let the government own the business outright.

You'll end up having more people then jobs available. A non-growing work force will have to support a larger and larger population.

You'll have to start rationing. Limiting births, limiting the amount of food each family can purchase to make everyone gets a slice of the economic pie regardless of how thin you have to slice it.

You may think the government can create new jobs but that ends up being make work. Hiring one group to dig holes and another to fill them up.

No innovation, no advancement driving the market. Just rationing and quotas.

The only real way to lift people up out of poverty is to give them the tools necessary to go out and create wealth on their own, not depend on the government to increase your wages.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If I replaced every single social program with granting money directly, how would the financial situation of that person change de facto? If nothing would change, then they would be the same economically. If they are just as screwed as before, why wouldn't I accordingly rise up the poverty line, since it is intended to designate people that don't live a decent lifestyle due to their economic condition and it is no longer functioning as a parameter to detect poverty?

All I did was tell you how much we would need to give people to get everyone above the poverty line. If we did this could they use the extra money to better themselves? If not, what is a better plan to get people out of poverty?

But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I was saying that we can't judge whether someone is causally responsible for something (such as employers that are causally responsible for keeping employees in poverty when they could pay more) strictly by adherence to the law.

Yes we can and we should. You want companies to pay more then advocate to change the laws, they will comply, they have proven they will. Companies are not obligated to provide a job at a certain wage to everyone. That is not what they do, but they do benefit people who work for them. It is the responsibility of each person to provide for themselves and if they cannot, then we should help them as long as they want help.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Who said they are free to amass unlimited ammounts of wealth? If the law, change the law. If some random person, ignore it.

The advocate for it, the problem you will have is the people in charge have wealth you want to take.

Except that we help people in need by confiscating money from people that we think that shouldn't have it.

Why shouldn't they have it?

I think of it as a technical aspect that is best served by hiring a team of economists that will evaluate how much money is necessary to live a decent live overall and how to reduce the overall impact of such a measure.

Then how do you know your plan is a good one?

Taxation.

If you tax every dollar past a certain amount then why would people bother to generate the wealth. The economy and job market would crash. How many employees would Amazon have is Bezos was not allowed to keep some profits from his business? Bezos made $77B in 2022, if he could only make $30M then why bother having the large company that employs a lot of people? Amazon employs over 1.5M people, if Bezos could only have $30M to his name at any one point then how many people would lose their jobs?

 

[George-ananda]

N

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?

One thought is not overtaxing the rich gives them money to invest in other capitalist business ventures creating jobs and lifting labor demand and wages for that other 90%.

 

[MikeF]

No. It just means there will need to be more than one investor. If it's such a great idea, that shouldn't be a problem. After all, there are still millionaires and wanna-be millionaires a-plenty around looking to invest for profit.

You are confusing business wealth caps with individual wealth caps. Both would easily be solves by spreading the profits around, or by using them to expand production.

There are privately owned companies.

What you propose here seems analogous to coming up with a fast food restaurant idea in which one can own and run their one or two stores and are free to franchise the restaurant, providing others with the menu, design choices, back-of-house methods of operation, but cannot receive renumeration from any of the franchisee's for their access and use of both the intellectual property of the system and the good will that has been generated in the brand after the inventor/owner took all the risk to make it happen in the first place.

I guess that is another thing that I'm not sure has been addressed in this conversation of wealth caps. How is risk addressed in this system? If there is no reward for taking risk, what effect with that have on innovation?

 

[MikeF]

No. It just means there will need to be more than one investor. If it's such a great idea, that shouldn't be a problem. After all, there are still millionaires and wanna-be millionaires a-plenty around looking to invest for profit.

You are confusing business wealth caps with individual wealth caps. Both would easily be solves by spreading the profits around, or by using them to expand production.

There are privately owned companies.

What you propose here seems analogous to coming up with a fast food restaurant idea in which one can own and run their one or two stores and are free to franchise the restaurant, providing others with the menu, design choices, back-of-house methods of operation, but cannot receive renumeration from any of the franchisee's for their access and use of both the intellectual property of the system and the good will that has been generated in the brand after the inventor/owner took all the risk to make it happen in the first place.

I guess that is another thing that I'm not sure has been addressed in this conversation of wealth caps. How is risk addressed in this system? If there is no reward for taking risk, what effect with that have on innovation?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The fastest growing economic, technical scientific

That would certainly put a damper on any new business creation. At that point you are basically providing an employment service for the government. Might as well just let the government own the business outright.

You'll end up having more people then jobs available. A non-growing work force will have to support a larger and larger population.

You'll have to start rationing. Limiting births, limiting the amount of food each family can purchase to make everyone gets a slice of the economic pie regardless of how thin you have to slice it.

You may think the government can create new jobs but that ends up being make work. Hiring one group to dig holes and another to fill them up.

No innovation, no advancement driving the market. Just rationing and quotas.

The only real way to lift people up out of poverty is to give them the tools necessary to go out and create wealth on their own, not depend on the government to increase your wages.

The fastest growing economic, scientific based, manufacturing, and business led country. Is China.
It is a mixed economy. It is creating modern infrastructure and wealth all around the world.
The western capitalist system is out dated and failing. The Chinese model of socialised capitalism is rising fast. there. Is no shortage of investors such as you are suggesting.

 

[Heyo]

N

One thought is not overtaxing the rich gives them money to invest in other capitalist business ventures creating jobs and lifting labor demand and wages for that other 90%.

And it should be obvious by now that that was a lie, or at least a pipe dream. Nothing of that has happened. The jobs created didn't lift wages, the only thing that was lifted is ROI.
But people who belong to the 90% still defend the model that hasn't worked for them for the last 50 years. I find that hard to explain - except by brainwashing.

 

[siti]

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.

What? OK so in the "limitarianism" thread I posted several reasons for not doing it, none of which presume any such thing...it would unbalance the economy, strain the supply side by discouraging investment and fuel (probably massive) inflation as a result of that and the effective transfer of money from investments (property, bonds, equities, venture capital...etc...which is where most personal wealth is for the super rich) to the pockets of consumers (thereby pushing up demand)...etc. etc.

You can look up my posts in that thread if you want a bit more rationale. Unlike the singers of the "greed and selfishness" chorus, I don't believe in "proof by repetition" but in a nutshell, I pointed out several times, that in the absence of any other changes to the way we run the economy, the sudden imposition of a 100% wealth tax would be either pointless (if the limit was set too high) or disastrous (if it wasn't) - hence the reason I keep asking about the limit.

And for full disclosure, if there was a vote on imposing a 100% tax on personal wealth above $40million, I would vote in favor of it (though I doubt many others would)...not because I think it would work, but because I am sure it wouldn't. It would push the economy towards (and perhaps beyond) the tipping point of terminal collapse and necessitate a complete overhaul that focuses on what we (humans) actually need - and it isn't money at all...let alone higher or lower taxation here and there.

 

[Nakosis]

The fastest growing economic, technical scientific

The fastest growing economic, scientific based, manufacturing, and business led country. Is China.
It is a mixed economy. It is creating modern infrastructure and wealth all around the world.
The western capitalist system is out dated and failing. The Chinese model of socialised capitalism is rising fast. there. Is no shortage of investors such as you are suggesting.

Yes in the early 80's China was forced to adopt capitalist ideologies for it's economy to survive and they were able to turn their economy around because of it. However since 2002, China has started to implement more state control over business. Things like wage control has increased unemployment for females, young adults and low skilled workers.
Minimum wages and employment in China - IZA Journal of Labor Policy

Just as predicted. In fact as the government has started to increase its control over business there is now talk of China's economy imploding.
I suspect you won't be able to continue to use China's "mixed" economy as an example of successful socialism for much longer.

However, yes capital has shown itself robust enough to carry social programs along for the ride. However governments gets greedy wanting more and more control. Unfortunately even capitalism has it limits on how well it can continue to work when government decides it has to exert greater control over the market.

The China economy

RIP​