The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[PureX]

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

My point is actually that what everyone here keeps calling and attributing to capitalism isn't capitalism. It's just commerce in the 20th century. Capitalism is a specific aspect of how we conduct commerce, and it's a very socially unhealthy aspect of it. That we need to face and rid ourselves of before it destroys us.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I don't know why you attach significance to China's growth.
I recognize that China's government is very dedicated to
economic & political expansion, while USA's is far less so,
even inhibiting economic growth in many areas.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Thanks for clarifying. You have said and I quote: "what is the exact number of dollars at which reasonable and morally justifiable accumulation of wealth suddenly crosses the line and becomes excessive, selfish and greedy?"

Thus why I have said you are asking for an optimal number.

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).

But what is this common sense and consensus grounded upon if not an arbitrary choice?

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

International agreements and making it illegal.

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)

You don't. What you need to be wary of is a wave of lockouts in critical sectors.

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?

You seem to be under the impression that the money would have to keep flowing from Josh to Joe at the same rate for the next years. Why?

 

[Koldo]

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?

Don't cut the social programs. You can cut the defense budget, for example, though. But then you would need to either make a massive cut on a few items or increase taxation on the wealthy to make up for that.

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.

Why would you judge whether anyone is causally responsible for something strictly by their adherence to the law? I truly don't understand the rationale. What does one thing have to do with the other?

 

[Koldo]

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

Isn't that what I am doing already?

Why shouldn't they have it

Because we need the money to provide a decent life in our societies.

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

Because it decreases the wealth gap.

If you tax every dollar past a certain amount then why would people bother to generate the wealth.

Status and social responsibility, for example.

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?

Imagine that Bezos is indeed a greedy person that cares about nothing other than how much money he is making. Amazon would scale down (or disappear) but the demand for products would remain high. This would create ample opportunity for competitors that would hire those workers.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't know why you attach significance to China's growth.
I recognize that China's government is very dedicated to
economic & political expansion, while USA's is far less so,
even inhibiting economic growth in many areas.

China has only industralsed a small faction of its nation and population.
It's intention is to increase this proportion to better equal up its society.

Were it to do so , and it most likely will. It will dwarf all other economies in the world.
Only India has a similar future potential.

The USA is extremely determined to maintain it's hegemony over world finance, trade and scientific and technical leadership.
However in many fields it has already lost that battle to china. It is now using every trade and scientific restriction available to it, in order to hinder China's advancement. It is using its hegemony to force other countries to follow its lead in blocking world trade with china.
It is using false security concerns as an excuse to embargo trade in semiconductors and allied technologies contrary to world trade rules. This has had a large dampening effect on China's recent trade. However it has forced China to invest heavily in advanced research and development, so as to become self sufficient in these areas. It has done so with great success, especially in semiconductors and Ai and communication fields. And is the world leader in transport, infrastructure construction, telecommunications, and green energy. It is now as the world's leading producer of motor vehicles. It supplies over 90% of the world supply of refined rare earth minerals

China has now limited the supply of processed rare earth minerals essential to the American Tec and arms industries.

In the medium and long term the American attempts at suppression have clearly failed. Heralding a clear dominance in those fields by China.

 

[Stevicus]

China has only industralsed a small faction of its nation and population.
It's intention is to increase this proportion to better equal up its society.

Were it to do so , and it most likely it will. It will dwarf all other economies in the world.
Only India has a similar future potential.

The USA is extremely determined to maintain it's hegemony over world finance, trade and scientific and technical leadership.
However in many fields it has already lost that battle to china. It is now using every trade and scientific restriction available to it, in order to hinder China's advancement. It is using its hegemony to force other countries to follow its lead in blocking world trade with china.
It is using false security concerns as an excuse to embargo trade in semiconductors and allied technologies contrary to world trade rules. This has had a large dampening effect on China's recent trade. However it has forced China to invest heavily in advanced research and development, so as to become self sufficient in these areas. It has done so with great success, especially in semiconductors and Ai and communication fields. And is the world leader in transport, infrastructure construction, telecommunications, and green energy. It is now as the world's leading producer of motor vehicles. It supplies over 90% of the world supply of refined rare earth minerals

China has now limited the supply of processed rare earth minerals essential to the American Tec and arms industries.

In the medium and long term the American attempts at suppression have clearly failed. Heralding a clear dominance in those fields by China.

Well, I suppose one can't blame China for wanting to get ahead and repel U.S. hegemony. However, I think that this also shows that U.S. political and economic leadership have been on the wrong track all along, considering the results and consequences you've outlined here. It just goes to show that capitalism isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

China has only industralsed a small faction of its nation and population.
It's intention is to increase this proportion to better equal up its society.

A "small" fraction of well over 1 billion people
resulted in massive industrialization.

Were it to do so , and it most likely will. It will dwarf all other economies in the world.
Only India has a similar future potential.

OK.

The USA is extremely determined to maintain it's hegemony over world finance, trade and scientific and technical leadership.

Business is determined to expand, but government
limits it in many ways. Government wants to maintain
influence, but China wants to expand it.

However in many fields it has already lost that battle to china. It is now using every trade and scientific restriction available to it, in order to hinder China's advancement. It is using its hegemony to force other countries to follow its lead in blocking world trade with china.
It is using false security concerns as an excuse to embargo trade in semiconductors and allied technologies contrary to world trade rules. This has had a large dampening effect on China's recent trade. However it has forced China to invest heavily in advanced research and development, so as to become self sufficient in these areas. It has done so with great success, especially in semiconductors and Ai and communication fields. And is the world leader in transport, infrastructure construction, telecommunications, and green energy. It is now as the world's leading producer of motor vehicles. It supplies over 90% of the world supply of refined rare earth minerals

China has now limited the supply of processed rare earth minerals essential to the American Tec and arms industries.

In the medium and long term the American attempts at suppression have clearly failed. Heralding a clear dominance in those fields by China.

OK.
I don't know why you're pursuing portrayal of
China as the nascent dominant world power.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A "small" fraction of well over 1 billion people
resulted in massive industrialization.

Absolutely
OK.

Business is determined to expand, but government
limits it in many ways. Government wants to maintain
influence, but China wants to expand it.

The USA Government wants to limit trade WITH China because it sees it as a threat

OK.
I don't know why you're pursuing portrayal of
China as the nascent dominant world power.

China is the world power in waiting.
America is losing its prime position. But is fighting to keep it.
Just like Trump lost, but tried to retain power by illegal means.
The final fall may be some way off, but will be extremely rapid when I comes.

It is already bankrupt in any real sense of the word. It is only the false trust by the world banks that is keeping it above water. It is spending way beyond any possibility of repayment.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

I'm of the mindset that says the only things worse than capitalism is every other system.

 

[Heyo]

I'm of the mindset that says the only things worse than capitalism is every other system.

And how did you come to that mindset?

 

[George-ananda]

And how did you come to that mindset?

By observing the countries that succeed the most in raising the quality of life overall.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

@Revoltingest
This is very worth looking at and explains a lot about the rise of China, and not because it embraced capitalism as many still poor countries have done that to no effect.
In China all the major banks are state owned.

 

[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.

A mixed economy is simply an economy in which capitalism is doing all of the heavy lifting.
However as China continues to seek greater control over the business environment, the burden of the socialist policies will become to great for even capitalism to bear.

I doubt you'll be able to continue to laud the Chinese economy for long at its current rate of decline into socialist stagnation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely
OK.


The USA Government wants to limit trade WITH China because it sees it as a threat



China is the world power in waiting.
America is losing its prime position. But is fighting to keep it.
Just like Trump lost, but tried to retain power by illegal means.
The final fall may be some way off, but will be extremely rapid when I comes.

It is already bankrupt in any real sense of the word. It is only the false trust by the world banks that is keeping it above water. It is spending way beyond any possibility of repayment.

"Bankrupt" doesn't mean what you think.
It's not borrowing irresponsibliy.
It's inability to pay one's debts.
Bankruptcy is protection from creditors as
one reorganizes to try to settle debts.
USA isn't doing that.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest
This is very worth looking at and explains a lot about the rise of China, and not because it embraced capitalism as many still poor countries have done that to no effect.
In China all the major banks are state owned.

Capitalism is serving China well.

 

[siti]

You have said and I quote: "what is the exact number of dollars at which reasonable and morally justifiable accumulation of wealth suddenly crosses the line and becomes excessive, selfish and greedy?"

Thus why I have said you are asking for an optimal number.

Ah! I see! You are interpreting my rhetorical question - the intent of which (I thought obviously) was to show that there is no such number. That is, there is no number that genuinely delineates a boundary between greedy and not greedy. Though related, that's a bit different from the question of where a reasonable threshold for a 100% wealth tax should be set if we decide to have one. That question is open to debate, but if someone is proposing such a tax, they surely must have a pretty reasonable idea of what that threshold might be - or at least of what such a threshold might be based on - average wealth/income or something.

But what is this common sense and consensus grounded upon if not an arbitrary choice?

Its grounded upon collective experience aka culture and, increasingly, scientific knowledge (for example, in the case of the age of consent, about the age at which a human reaches genuine sexual maturity and is psychologically capable of making informed choices about sexual activity).

You seem to be under the impression that the money would have to keep flowing from Josh to Joe at the same rate for the next years. Why?

You seem to be under the impression that a sudden redistribution of wealth would be sufficient to balance the scales of economic justice without unbalancing the normal function of the economy.

Anyways, we are drifting way off topic as @Heyo has said. I think I'll post something in the economics forum sometime to show why I don't think limitarianism can work.

 

[Heyo]

By observing the countries that succeed the most in raising the quality of life overall.

The US isn't among them, hasn't been for 50 years.

 

[Revoltingest]

The US isn't among them, hasn't been for 50 years.

Quality of life here is much better than half
a century ago. My guess is that snooty Euros
just want to look down their schnazes at us.
I see many improvements.

 

[Heyo]

Quality of life here is much better than half
a century ago. My guess is that snooty Euros
just want to look down their schnazes at us.
I see many improvements.

That may be anecdotal, or a delusion caused by the indoctrination you were subjected to. Anyway, your personal feeling doesn't match the statistics.