The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[siti]

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.

Context is indeed the key! I am not "demanding" an optimal number, I am asking by what process and using what rationale (or what kind of rationale) such a number might be determined. @PureX has at least made a suggestion - that the number be determined by polling the population on the question of how much is needed to live a safe and comfortable life and then doubling it...and after some pages of discussion, supporters of the idea do seem to be settling somewhere in the tens of millions (compared to the variance of almost three orders of magnitude that were being bandied about earlier). I think it is important that there would be at least some idea of what the limit might be and how it might be determined BEFORE it was imposed, don't you? Not least because you would, presumably, want to know (at least approximately) how much revenue the tax might raise and what kind of effect imposing it might have on the economy...how many investors might have their investments stripped, how many of the poor might actually benefit, by what redistributive process(es) and by how much.

The problem with "in principle" impositions is they sometimes fail to anticipate the (sometimes catastrophic) economic consequences..."turn gold into bread" sounded good in principle but that's not exactly how the Bolshevik redistribution of wealth worked out, you may recall.

And I don't agree that the kind of specific numbers set by law that you appealed to as examples are even "generally" arbitrary at all. They are derived from common sense, consensus and successive iteration. The age of consent in most western countries, for example has changed over time from 1275 in England when girls over 12 were considered "maidens of age" to today when most countries have it set around 16-18. But common sense and general consensus told everyone that it shouldn't be 6 or 32 (which might very well have happened if the number were truly arbitrary).

In terms of setting the limit for a 100% wealth tax, I think @PureX is probably on the right track - finding a reasonable consensus at which to begin and then reiterating as economic circumstances evolve.

So lets say, for the sake of moving on, we do the poll and the limit is set at $40 million.

How do we then guard against the potential undesirable consequences, for example:

1. How do you stop the super rich simply shifting their wealth offshore and avoid paying the tax at all
2. How do you control the destabilizing (inflationary/deflationary/whatever) effects of the sudden shifting around of trillions of dollars to different sides of the economy (mostly, if the tax is to achieve its stated aim of genuinely closing the wealth gap, from investments to consumer spending)
3. How do you sustain it - once you have taxed personal wealth above $40million in year 1, where does the revenue come from in year 2?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

China is expanding precisely because
(& only since) it started using capitalism.
But currently....

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/economy/china-economy-challenges-2024-intl-hnk/index.html

 

[siti]

I find that hard to explain - except by brainwashing.

Have you tried reading? I find that helps sometimes. I don't recommend brainwashing, I tried it once and I couldn't do a thing with it afterwards. But if you must, try not to use sham poo...at least get some real poo...there's plenty of it around!

 

[Heyo]

Context is indeed the key! I am not "demanding" an optimal number, I am asking by what process and using what rationale (or what kind of rationale) such a number might be determined. @PureX has at least made a suggestion - that the number be determined by polling the population on the question of how much is needed to live a safe and comfortable life and then doubling it...and after some pages of discussion, supporters of the idea do seem to be settling somewhere in the tens of millions (compared to the variance of almost three orders of magnitude that were being bandied about earlier). I think it is important that there would be at least some idea of what the limit might be and how it might be determined BEFORE it was imposed, don't you? Not least because you would, presumably, want to know (at least approximately) how much revenue the tax might raise and what kind of effect imposing it might have on the economy...how many investors might have their investments stripped, how many of the poor might actually benefit, by what redistributive process(es) and by how much.

The problem with "in principle" impositions is they sometimes fail to anticipate the (sometimes catastrophic) economic consequences..."turn gold into bread" sounded good in principle but that's not exactly how the Bolshevik redistribution of wealth worked out, you may recall.

And I don't agree that the kind of specific numbers set by law that you appealed to as examples are even "generally" arbitrary at all. They are derived from common sense, consensus and successive iteration. The age of consent in most western countries, for example has changed over time from 1275 in England when girls over 12 were considered "maidens of age" to today when most countries have it set around 16-18. But common sense and general consensus told everyone that it shouldn't be 6 or 32 (which might very well have happened if the number were truly arbitrary).

In terms of setting the limit for a 100% wealth tax, I think @PureX is probably on the right track - finding a reasonable consensus at which to begin and then reiterating as economic circumstances evolve.

So lets say, for the sake of moving on, we do the poll and the limit is set at $40 million.

How do we then guard against the potential undesirable consequences, for example:

1. How do you stop the super rich simply shifting their wealth offshore and avoid paying the tax at all
2. How do you control the destabilizing (inflationary/deflationary/whatever) effects of the sudden shifting around of trillions of dollars to different sides of the economy (mostly, if the tax is to achieve its stated aim of genuinely closing the wealth gap, from investments to consumer spending)
3. How do you sustain it - once you have taxed personal wealth above $40million in year 1, where does the revenue come from in year 2?

Wrong thread.

There's another one about the intricacies of limitarianism. (Wealth acquisition and distribution?)
This thread deals with those who want no limits put on the super rich, and even defend that they pay a smaller percentage on their income than the average 90%er.
Finding the point at which a person is seen as super rich was OK, as that was one of the not well-defined points of the OP.
How to deal with the economics is not a topic.

But it's good to have a number now (or a range, about $10⁸ as an order of magnitude).

 

[siti]

Wrong thread.

There's another one about the intricacies of limitarianism. (Wealth acquisition and distribution?)
This thread deals with those who want no limits put on the super rich, and even defend that they pay a smaller percentage on their income than the average 90%er.
Finding the point at which a person is seen as super rich was OK, as that was one of the not well-defined points of the OP.
How to deal with the economics is not a topic.

But it's good to have a number now (or a range, about $10⁸ as an order of magnitude).

Yeah! I tried staying on topic in this thread...I identified where I see the psychological issue in post 218 (and others)...but up to now the redistribution supporters have only contributed emotional and insulting remarks accusing anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them of betrayal, supporting greed and selfishness and being brainwashed...etc.

Seriously? Do you really see signs of brainwashing in any of my posts?

I am pushing for details of how this redistribution of wealth might work so that we can see who is really thinking about it and who is showing the classical symptoms of binary "group think" brainwashing and reacting emotionally when their cherished viewpoint is challenged with factual information and rational thinking.

And to be perfectly frank...most of what I've seen in this thread and the other and on both sides of the argument...is not encouraging.

And there is your answer...the capitalist indoctrination as you call it is extraordinarily successful because even though there is very obviously no such thing its got you all in a tiz about it instead of thinking through the implications of any proposed improvement or correction of the system. But there's no conspiracy here...you guys on both sides are just fooling yourselves into believing that if we can just tweak the system according to a more capitalist or more socialist doctrine, we'll all be better off. It's binary, it's group think, it's them and us...and from psychological point of view it's the disease not the cure.

So my sincere apologies if you feel that consideration of pertinent facts and thoughtful questions derailed your insult-trading thread...I really thought it might help...but if the patient is unwilling to swallow the pill...the disease will likely remain.

 

[Heyo]

So my sincere apologies if you feel that consideration of pertinent facts and thoughtful questions derailed your insult-trading thread...I really thought it might help...but if the patient is unwilling to swallow the pill...the disease will likely remain.

Apology accepted.
And, to your relief, I'm not against thinking things through. It is just your specific model you have chosen, which I don't even endorse. So, kind of a straw man.
And, not that I'm accusing you, that tactic is often a tool of the indoctrinated and indoctrinators. When you go through the answers, the black-and-white fallacy is pretty prominent. Whenever there is some form of capitalism critique, there is always someone raising the spectre of communism. Irrational fear has been named as part of the indoctrination success, and I think we have ample evidence for it.

 

[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.

 

[Heyo]

The western capitalist system is out dated and failing. The Chinese model of socialised capitalism is rising fast.

To get that connected to the topic, does China have a similar income/wealth gap than the US?
If so, are the people also happy with that and defend the super rich against their own interests?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

China is expanding precisely because
(& only since) it started using capitalism.
But currently....

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/economy/china-economy-challenges-2024-intl-hnk/index.html

China has been very aware of it's demographic problem for many years, and there is no doubt that it is entering a new phase in its development. Unlike the west it does not only rely on traditional market forces. It has also linked its future to many other developing countries, by undertaking massive infrastructure projects, which will mature over the next half century. It has also taken advantage of some western countries adverse treatment of advanced scientific students, researchers, and business leaders by encouraging them to return to China, to continue their careers.

There is obvious evidence in a slow down in its growth but it will remain higher than western counterparts.and should remain compatible with it's changing demographic structure.

 

[siti]

Apology accepted.
And, to your relief, I'm not against thinking things through. It is just your specific model you have chosen, which I don't even endorse. So, kind of a straw man.
And, not that I'm accusing you, that tactic is often a tool of the indoctrinated and indoctrinators. When you go through the answers, the black-and-white fallacy is pretty prominent. Whenever there is some form of capitalism critique, there is always someone raising the spectre of communism. Irrational fear has been named as part of the indoctrination success, and I think we have ample evidence for it.

For the record...

1. The 100% wealth tax "strawman" was not of my choosing...that was @PureX ...who got very upset about people wailing and crying about something that hadn't even been mentioned in this thread before that

2. I have not used the word communism at all...you are the first to use the word in this thread in the sense of a "spectre"...

...where is the irrational fear?

Is it really with someone raising the spectre of communism (which nobody has) or someone imagining the raising of a spectre that hasn't been raised?

Is it with someone wailing and crying about something that nobody has even mentioned...or someone imagining wailing and crying about something that nobody has even mentioned - let alone wailed or cried about?

Is it with someone who says wait a minute let's think about it...or someone who imagines that considering other opinions equates to indoctrination?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

To get that connected to the topic, does China have a similar income/wealth gap than the US?
If so, are the people also happy with that and defend the super rich against their own interests?

It has also got a wealth gap. That it has been actively addressing. It has already eliminated extreme poverty and homelessness. It has started to address the problem. Oof excessive incomes of the extremely wealthy, largely by investigating and stamping out corruption and tax avoidance.
However not all Chinese business empire owners, extract the same sort of margines out of their enterprises as in the west, they are satisfied with far lower profit margines.

 

[Heyo]

It has also got a wealth gap. That it has been actively addressing. It has already eliminated extreme poverty and homelessness. It has started to address the problem. Oof excessive incomes of the extremely wealthy, largely by investigating and stamping out corruption and tax avoidance.
However not all Chinese business empire owners, extract the same sort of margines out of their enterprises as in the west, they are satisfied with far lower profit margines.

So, they are still in the phase of capitalism that benefits all (even though not evenly)?

 

[Heyo]

2. I have not used the word communism at all...you are the first to use the word in this thread in the sense of a "spectre"...

I didn't say you used it, I said the knee-jerk reaction of bringing up communism/socialism was prevalent. I only had to wait till answer #3.

...where is the irrational fear?

All around you. Mentioning communism/socialism in response to an idea automatically gets a lot of people to panic.

Is it with someone who says wait a minute let's think about it...or someone who imagines that considering other opinions equates to indoctrination?

Let's think about it. How can we bring people to see income/wealth equality for the problem it is and think about it rationally, instead of irrationally divert the debate?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So, they are still in the phase of capitalism that benefits all (even though not evenly)?

Capitalism does not lend itself to even benefits unless modified. Such modifications are exampled by partnership arrangements like John Lewis in the UK and Huawei in China. There is no evidence that such arrangements are being enforced anywhere in the world.
The current boss of John lewis is no more highly paid than any CEO of a similar sized business. Whilst the founder of Huawei is on the very rich list, but not in the multi billionaire bracket as the business size might suggest.

Capitalism. Almost by definition, does not benefit equally. It functions by concentrating investable wealth., not by distributing it equally.
There is no inbuilt mechanism to limit the disparity in any equitable way.
However there Could be, but it would take overwhelming political will.

 

[Heyo]

Capitalism does not lend itself to even benefits unless modified. Such modifications are exampled by partnership arrangements like John Lewis in the UK and Huawei in China. There is no evidence that such arrangements are being enforced anywhere in the world.
The current boss of John lewis is no more hilly paid than any CEO of a similar business. Whilst the founder of Huawei is on the rich list, as the but not in the multi billionaire bracket as the business size might suggest.

Capitalism. Almost by definition, does not benefit equally. It functions by concentrating investable wealth., not by distributing it equally.
There is no inbuilt mechanism to limit the disparity in any equitable way.
However there Could be, but it would take overwhelming political will.

Agree on all points.
But capitalism can benefit all, or at least a vast majority, by raising living standards across all classes. In the West, it worked well from WWII into the '70s.

 

[siti]

Let's think about it. How can we bring people to see income/wealth equality for the problem it is and think about it rationally, instead of irrationally divert the debate?

Well perhaps one way might be to resist the urge to hurl insults and question the rationality and intellectual integrity of people who might disagree with your view on it before they have even said anything...another might be to try not to give in to feelings of betrayal or smell a conspiracy just because not everyone agrees with you...

...all of which was immediately evident in your OP...

Hardly an auspicious opening for a rational discourse on (or off) any topic. Nevertheless some of us did at least try...poor deluded fools that we are.

 

[PureX]

Agree on all points.
But capitalism can benefit all, or at least a vast majority, by raising living standards across all classes. In the West, it worked well from WWII into the '70s.

That was't capitalism that did that. It was industrialization, advances in technology, and socialist policies. All of which the capitalists have sought to either eliminate or exploit for their own gain. Successfully.

Why do we keep trying to defend this systemic and socially toxic greed? Are we really this stupid?

Sadly, yes, we are this stupid.

 

[PureX]

Capitalism does not lend itself to even benefits unless modified. Such modifications are exampled by partnership arrangements like John Lewis in the UK and Huawei in China. There is no evidence that such arrangements are being enforced anywhere in the world.
The current boss of John lewis is no more highly paid than any CEO of a similar sized business. Whilst the founder of Huawei is on the very rich list, but not in the multi billionaire bracket as the business size might suggest.

Capitalism. Almost by definition, does not benefit equally. It functions by concentrating investable wealth., not by distributing it equally.
There is no inbuilt mechanism to limit the disparity in any equitable way.
However there Could be, but it would take overwhelming political will.

And why keep a system that is this toxic, and this determined to be unfair? Why not stop having to do battle with it constantly to protect ourselves from it and just replace it with a more fair and just system? What would that system be, you ask? It's very simple, really. The problem with capitalism is that it put the control of commercial enterprise solely in the hands of the capital investor. And they use it to gain a maximum return on their investment at the expense of everyone else involved in and effected by that commercial enterprise. So all we have to do to put a stop to this greed-fest is to install a decision-making process that gives some control over the enterprise to all those other people involved in and effected by that commercial enterprise. Namely labor, consumer, and community. As well as the investors.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Agree on all points.
But capitalism can benefit all, or at least a vast majority, by raising living standards across all classes. In the West, it worked well from WWII into the '70s.

That is a tiny time frame and is not typical of capitalism.
That short post war period was one of massive growth, and shortage of goods and skilled labour.. which also allowed a corresponding growth in the power of unions and subsequent rise in wages. There is no likelihood that these conditions will reoccur in the USA ever again.
The large shortage of people with business and administrative skills accounted for the rise of the middle class and white collar workers.
It demonstrates the power of supply and demand on Capitalism itself.

Today, the rise of automation and computerisation has reduced the need for many skilled but routine middle class jobs, but greatly increased the needed skill and education level of such jobs as remain. The size of the necessary middle class management pool is greatly diminished. While there has been a considerable rise in the highly specialised technically skilled non management positions.

.

 

[Heyo]

Well perhaps one way might be to resist the urge to hurl insults and question the rationality and intellectual integrity of people who might disagree with your view on it before they have even said anything...another might be to try not to give in to feelings of betrayal or smell a conspiracy just because not everyone agrees with you...

...all of which was immediately evident in your OP...

Hardly an auspicious opening for a rational discourse on (or off) any topic. Nevertheless some of us did at least try...poor deluded fools that we are.

That was't capitalism that did that. It was industrialization, advances in technology, and socialist policies. All of which the capitalists have sought to either eliminate or exploit for their own gain. Successfully.

Why do we keep trying to defend this systemic and socially toxic greed? Are we really this stupid?

Sadly, yes.

One critique that I'm too critical and one that I'm not critical enough - I must be doing something right.