The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Stevicus]

But I don't tell on you.

Then I wish glory to you and your house.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then I wish glory to you and your house.

We're happy with just mediocrity.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Look around -- the earth is abundantly full of great wealth. You just had to go and get it.

Amassing wealth, on the other hand, was more usually through the sweat of multitudes consigned to slavery or serfdom for the benefit of the rich and/or powerful. This did not create wealth -- just made sure it wound up primarily in few hands, with just enough left over to keep the multitudes sweating.

Do you see a great difference between what you are describing here, and the current global economy?

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah, I am going to disagree here. Systems are complex and I do not think you are taking into account all the variables. In the United States specifically, up and until the '80, US workers had a monopoly on the labor required by the US economy. In addition, we might say that we were able to obtain natural resources from the third world at prices advantageous to the US but that did not reasonably benefit the source country or its people.

Then globalization occurs and US workers no longer have a monopoly on labor but have to compete with labor world wide. While this stagnated earning power for US workers, I would say it dramatically improved the earning power for many workers in other countries that heretofore had been excluded from participating meaningfully in modern economic markets.

I don't have numbers but I speculate that the overall global standard of living has increased since the '80's and it is due to a greater ability for everyone, not just those in the US or Europe, to participate in a global interconnected market system.

I've heard this argument before, mainly from pro-globalist liberals who felt that the end of the Cold War would bring about a peace dividend and create a world of peaceful commerce which would benefit all nations. It was quite compelling at the time, and the world seemed to be heading in that direction, as more and more industry and technology spread to the developing world. That was about 30-40 years ago, and that's the course that the US and other globalist/capitalist countries had been pushing for. Even China seemed to be on board with it, as a lot of businesses outsourced to China.

And it's not really that US workers couldn't compete with workers from other countries. There were other factors which drove businesses to outsource, such as US labor laws, OSHA requirements, policies which prohibit discrimination in hiring, etc. Businesses wanted to set up shop in countries with cheaper workers and cheaper politicians.

I don't know if the global standard of living has gotten any better or worse at this point. I know that when the politicos were pushing NAFTA to the public, they made all kinds of big, grandiose promises about how it will make things so much better. I won't say it's made things worse, but nothing was broken in America that would have necessitated all this outsourcing and globalism in the first place. Everything was fine prior to Reagan, so there was no reason to do it at all, and since it didn't really make America into the paradise they promised it would be, it seems like it's all been a big fat lot of nothing. There's been no benefit to it. There's been no purpose, other than to make a few con artists and grifters into billionaires.

 

[Koldo]

Look around -- the earth is abundantly full of great wealth. You just had to go and get it.

Amassing wealth, on the other hand, was more usually through the sweat of multitudes consigned to slavery or serfdom for the benefit of the rich and/or powerful. This did not create wealth --

How was this not equal to creating wealth?

just made sure it wound up primarily in few hands, with just enough left over to keep the multitudes sweating.

That's capitalism in a nutshell.

 

[MikeF]

Not the exact same share.

Then isn't disparity built into the system from the start? With different activities resulting in different compensation, as well as some individuals dedicating more of their time to income producing activities than others there can't help but be differences in income, which some refer to as a disparity.

Given that disparity is build in, I think we should focus on ensuring everyone has the opportunity to participate and earn an income that provides a sufficient standard of living for themselves. It does not require abandoning a well regulated market economy to accomplish this.

I would also say that your phrasing here prompts me to ask, if not the *exact* same, how close or compact should the distribution of income be?

Is the guy who holds the traffic flag during road construction earning $15/hour and a heart surgeon earning $400 an hour an acceptable differential in your economic scheme?

 

[Stevicus]

Then isn't disparity built into the system from the start? With different activities resulting in different compensation, as well as some individuals dedicating more of their time to income producing activities than others there can't help but be differences in income, which some refer to as a disparity.

Given that disparity is build in, I think we should focus on ensuring everyone has the opportunity to participate and earn an income that provides a sufficient standard of living for themselves. It does not require abandoning a well regulated market economy to accomplish this.

I would also say that your phrasing here prompts me to ask, if not the *exact* same, how close or compact should the distribution of income be?

Is the guy who holds the traffic flag during road construction earning $15/hour and a heart surgeon earning $400 an hour an acceptable differential in your economic scheme?

I wouldn't say that it's "built into" the system.

As for your last two questions, we should ask what we're really saying here? The guy that holds the traffic flag during road construction is doing a job, and so is the heart surgeon doing a job. If one earns $400 while the other earns $15, this is an indication that society believes that the heart surgeon is doing work which is 26.67 times more valuable than the traffic flag holder. Is there some mathematical formula we can utilize to determine how such figures are reached and calculated?

If it's built into the system, then someone should be to come up with some sort of formula or scientific method to be able to determine the exact value of someone's work within the context of society as a whole. Otherwise it just comes off as whimsical and arbitrary.

However, I can see that there are some differences which can account for disparities. A brain surgeon obviously has to go to school for a lot longer than a traffic flag holder, so we can account for that, calculating it based on the number of years of schooling. Assuming the traffic flag holder has a high school diploma, then that's 12 years of schooling. The brain surgeon would have that, plus four years for a bachelors, another four years of doctorate, and two years of residence, for a total of 22 years. 22/12 = 1.8333, so that's how much higher of a salary the brain surgeon should get over the traffic flag holder. That's almost twice as much, so it should be good enough. Does that seem fair to you?

 

[Koldo]

Economic liberty is the right to work where one
wants, to start a business, to own it, to advance,
to work in any field.

If you have freedom, but not the means... good luck.
Thus why I don't value economic liberty all that much.

Social liberty is essentially the Bill Of Rights.
It is possible, but historically it's never existed
under socialism. The reason is systemic, ie,
the greater governmental power necessary to
control an economy is power that will tend to
be used in any area. Social oppression results.

You just don't get to see the problem domestically in the US, but the US intervened across the globe, through the very use of the governamental power you speak of, to prevent socialists from either rising to power or being successful. Lots of power were used to keep most of the world economically aligned (to say the least) with the US.

Too bad. It matters to many of us.
This was especially so for many I've known who
escaped socialism because of the crushing
poverty....& the social oppression.

What countries are you referring to specifically?
It is unfair to put the blame on socialism when the country was already poor before it became socialist.

 

[MikeF]

And it's not really that US workers couldn't compete with workers from other countries. There were other factors which drove businesses to outsource, such as US labor laws, OSHA requirements, policies which prohibit discrimination in hiring, etc. Businesses wanted to set up shop in countries with cheaper workers and cheaper politicians.

Absolutely, these other factors were/are at play. But these factors are in addition to the wage gap between American workers and the under developed or less developed world, which you acknowledge there at the end.

I don't know if the global standard of living has gotten any better or worse at this point.

Perhaps there is an economist in the RF community that has that answer at their fingertips. Anecdotally, I traveled through China in 2014 and was duly impressed at what seemed a significant transformation from the impressions I had been given of China in the 1970's.

I won't say it's made things worse, but nothing was broken in America that would have necessitated all this outsourcing and globalism in the first place.

So you favor isolationism and protectionism and to hell with the rest of the world? America first, then?

Everything was fine prior to Reagan, so there was no reason to do it at all, and since it didn't really make America into the paradise they promised it would be, it seems like it's all been a big fat lot of nothing. There's been no benefit to it. There's been no purpose, other than to make a few con artists and grifters into billionaires.

If it is not as I speculate that globalization has improved the global standard of living, and instead had no impact outside the US and only resulted in hurting the US economy, then I would have to agree with you. But saying that there was no benefit to America is not the same thing as saying there was no benefit, no purpose at all. If I am correct in my speculation, then there was a benefit to globalization. And isn't that a good thing? I could have sworn that you have brought up the idea that when the needs of the society are being met, it results in more stability as everyone is invested in the system and has something to loose. I would think raising the global standard of living would be a goal for everyone in that case.

As to billionaires, todays billionaires are the same as yesteryears millionaires, adjusted for inflation. Globalization hasn't altered that constant.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you have freedom, but not the means... good luck.
Thus why I don't value economic liberty all that much.

Rights aren't a guarantee that all will be able
to use them equally. But history shows that
when socialism takes away those rights,
liberty suffers.

You just don't get to see the problem domestically in the US, but the US intervened across the globe, through the very use of the governamental power you speak of, to prevent socialists from either rising to power or being successful. Lots of power were used to keep most of the world economically aligned (to say the least) with the US.

To blame socialism's 100% failure rate on USA
is quite a stretch. Socialists also sought to
curb USA's power.

What are the 4 problems of Soviet agriculture?

Spoiler: The answer

Spring, summer, fall, winter

Same for China, ie, its agricultural failures were
their own fault, not any other countries.
How do you get rid of mice in the Kremlin?

Spoiler: The answer

Put up a sign in mouse holes saying
they're becoming a collective.
Those who don't flee will starve.

What countries are you referring to specifically?
It is unfair to put the blame on socialism when the country was already poor before it became socialist.

It's not about fairness.
It's socialism's flawless record of having neither
economic nor social liberty, eg, N Korea, Cuba,
Cambodia, China, USSR, E Germany.

 

[Firenze]

Insightful.
Just one detail: we all will die. Sooner or later. Of old age.
The only difference is that Capitalists will understand during agony that the profit maximization they have been obsessed with their entire existence has been utterly pointless. Not worth it, since they will have to abandon that extra-profit. They can't take it with them in the afterlife.

The Socialists who have fought for workers' rights and fair minimum wage will die peacefully, being aware that that quest has been worth it.

It’s pointless to pass down the wealth you earned to your children?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

To what? A fair days work for a fair days pay, and a reasonable share in the wealth of nations? I see those things as among the rights of every citizen in a democratic society.

Are we talking about the same thing? Why are you entitled to other people's money they earned? Also, the top 1% in the US pays 40% of the income taxes, the top 10% pay 60% of all the income taxes, Bottom 50% pays 3% of all the income taxes. How are the rich not paying their fair share?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But the rich don’t make money in a vacuum. They rely on people to buy stuff, on laws of property and other social structures developed and maintained by society, on infrastructure and services paid for by all citizens, etc. Many businesses sell partly on the basis of persuading people to buy stuff they don’t need. For all these reasons these people owe a debt to the society in which they earn their wealth.

This is ridiculous. They pay taxes for these services just like you do. No one is forcing anyone to buy useless products, that is on the consumer, Also, the rich benefit society too in paying most of the taxes, creating jobs and wealth for others.

If there was a “market” in the value of these communal services and everyone had to “buy” them at a negotiated price, they would be worth a lot more to the rich, as enablers of their wealth. So on a free market basis they would expect to pay more for them.

That is not how it works. They pay for streets, police , fire departments etc. just like everyone else, charging them more is unfair.

 

[Estro Felino]

It’s pointless to pass down the wealth you earned to your children?

What about the billionaires who don't have any children?

 

[Stevicus]

So you favor isolationism and protectionism and to hell with the rest of the world? America first, then?

You would characterize America's policies prior to Reagan as "America First"? I don't agree with that assessment.

If it is not as I speculate that globalization has improved the global standard of living, and instead had no impact outside the US and only resulted in hurting the US economy, then I would have to agree with you. But saying that there was no benefit to America is not the same thing as saying there was no benefit, no purpose at all. If I am correct in my speculation, then there was a benefit to globalization. And isn't that a good thing? I could have sworn that you have brought up the idea that when the needs of the society are being met, it results in more stability as everyone is invested in the system and has something to loose. I would think raising the global standard of living would be a goal for everyone in that case.

As to billionaires, todays billionaires are the same as yesteryears millionaires, adjusted for inflation. Globalization hasn't altered that constant.

There is a benefit to more peaceful cooperation and conduct among nations, certainly. But the disparities in wealth on a global level are still existent, and from some perspectives, it might be seen and rightfully criticized as "neo-colonialism." Is there a benefit to all of this? Perhaps there could be, depending on one's point of view. Back in the day, Europeans would argue that there was a benefit to colonialism, that they were helping the native peoples in the colonies. It's a kind of "white man's burden" justification which has been roundly criticized in modern times.

But what is the reality here? Are the needs of all the people being met? Do they all have good jobs with good working conditions and good pay? Do they live in decent housing with access to decent healthcare and their kids attending good schools?

How long will it be until they realize that they're being exploited by the same people who exploited their parents and grandparents during colonialism, and how will they feel about the national governments which have been facilitating and enabling this practice? Right now, we have countries kicking off against us, defying the West, and starting to form power blocs against us. Do you think they're doing this just out of the blue, because they "hate us for our freedom"?

 

[Firenze]

What about the billionaires who don't have any children?

They still likely have nieces and nephews they care about. Or charities they wish to benefit.

 

[Estro Felino]

They still likely have nieces and nephews they care about. Or charities they wish to benefit.

Still, their obsessive quest for the profit maximization has been pointless, worthless and destructive.
And that will be written in history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Still, their obsessive quest for the profit maximization has been pointless, worthless and destructive.

That's your opinion.
You don't care to build a business.
But you shouldn't punish others for different preferences.
BTW, your life doesn't look more full of meaning then theirs.
An internet gadfly advocating for fascism....ew.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's your opinion.
You don't care to build a business.
But you shouldn't punish others for different preferences.
BTW, your life doesn't look more full of meaning then theirs.
An internet gadfly advocating for fascism....ew.

I wasn't speaking with you.
Do you have the tail of straw, by chance?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are we talking about the same thing? Why are you entitled to other people's money they earned? Also, the top 1% in the US pays 40% of the income taxes, the top 10% pay 60% of all the income taxes, Bottom 50% pays 3% of all the income taxes. How are the rich not paying their fair share?

I have no problem (in the words of English politician Peter Mandelsohn) with people getting rich - so long as they pay their fair share of taxes. I’m not convinced they are, in general. And whilst I’m not actively disputing your figures, I’m not persuaded of their accuracy either tbh.

Europeans and Americans generally have very different ideas about wealth and it’s distribution. I see wealth as something communities hold in common; when societies become nothing more than atomised groups of disparate individuals, with no sense of responsibility to each other, they are at risk of breaking down. Which is what seems to be happening all round the developed world at the moment.