Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[MikeF]

All economies are "market economies".

If the state sets the prices for commodities, goods, and services, is such an economic system considered a market system by economists? I think there is such a thing as non-market economies as well as non-market forces.

Perhaps we can agree that economies can fall somewhere along a broad spectrum from non-market systems on one end of the scale and wholly unregulated and unrestricted market economies on the other end. If we both agree that either extreme end of this spectrum is not desirable, it then becomes a matter of finding the sweet spot in between the extremes that best meets the disparate actual and subjective needs and wants of society members.

All human interaction has to be controlled.

Is ‘controlled’ the right word? The word ‘regulated’ or ‘managed’ seems more appropriate to me. Don’t we want to create an environment in which one has the freedom to pursue what they perceive will meet their subjective happiness so long as it doesn’t impinge on the same pursuit of others?

The questions are how is that control being decided and imposed, and what is the end goal?
I suspect that when it all shakes out there would be two economic models operating concurrently. One that ensures everyone is being sufficiently cared for regarding the essentials, and the other to enable individual preferences. An 'essential' market, and a 'luxury' market. With the essential market being given the priority.

One might argue that we already have a tiered market system. There are stores that offer very economical, no-frills, basic consumer products, there are mid-range products that may have a few more bells and whistles or are made of somewhat more costly materials, and then there are the high-end luxury products and the stores that cater to that market.

For me the concern would be how we ensure the basic necessity of food, shelter, healthcare, and employment are sufficiently and appropriately met within the market system.

This does raise the question that if there is an obligation of society to ensure these necessities are met for everyone in society, is there a reciprocal obligation for society members to participate and contribute to society? What is the minimum required of an individual to receive a guarantee of housing, food, and healthcare? If one is able yet refuses to participate, are they still afforded access to the healthcare system or housing for example?

 

[Koldo]

Yet you felt comfortable painting everybody with the same broad brush regardless of country, culture, financial situation, or circumstance when labeling "X" behavior as greed; huh?

None of these questions directed at you were about the topic at hand, my questions were about the comment you made.

Sincerely, I don't see the point of continuing this particular line of conversation since it is wholly irrelevant to the main topic. It comes across as splitting hairs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends. Sometimes it is better to place the collective above the individual.

We agree, differing only on the extent
of sacrificing the individual's rights.

Hmmm... What if it was illegal to accumulate a lot of wealth?

Where has that worked?

At varying degrees.

But always better than government
trying to do the same job.

Or end up with another set of rights.

The right to conform, to serve, to sacrifice, to obey, to cluck approval.

 

[PureX]

If the state sets the prices for commodities, goods, and services, is such an economic system considered a market system by economists?

Economists are just shills for the rich. I don't care what they have to say about anything. And yes, it would still be a market economy because commerce is still taking place. Controlled or uncontrolled, it's still commerce being engaged in.

Perhaps we can agree that economies can fall somewhere along a broad spectrum from non-market systems on one end of the scale and wholly unregulated and unrestricted market economies on the other end.

"Markets" are just categories of commerce. People trading goods and services with each other.

If we both agree that either extreme end of this spectrum is not desirable, it then becomes a matter of finding the sweet spot in between the extremes that best meets the disparate actual and subjective needs and wants of society members.

We humans all pretty much need the same things to survive and thrive. If we remove all the waste and idiocy involved in capitalist profiteering we could meet these needs fairly easily and efficiantly with minimal effort on everyone's part. Once those needs are being met we can then be freed up to explore how we might serve the collective AND fulfil ourselves at the same time. And this should be our goal.

Is ‘controlled’ the right word? The word ‘regulated’ or ‘managed’ seems more appropriate to me. Don’t we want to create an environment in which one has the freedom to pursue what they perceive will meet their subjective happiness so long as it doesn’t impinge on the same pursuit of others?

It's all pretty much the same thing. I used the word control because I know people don't like it. Our selfish selves don't like it. Our selfish selves want to act in the dark with no one looking on so we can cut corners, and gain advantage. Which is exactly why we humans need to be controlled when we interact with each other. It's also why we need to learn to put our selfishness subordinate to the well being of our collective.

One might argue that we already have a tiered market system. There are stores that offer very economical, no-frills, basic consumer products, there are mid-range products that may have a few more bells and whistles or are made of somewhat more costly materials, and then there are the high-end luxury products and the stores that cater to that market.

No, we don't. EVERYTHING we make and sell we make and sell for profit. And NOT for the purpose these things were actually intended. We don't build or buy houses to live in, we build and buy them, now, to gain a profit. And as a result people are going homeless while houses are left abandoned and falling down all across America. We don't grow food for people to eat, we grow it for a profit. And as a result people go hungry. We don't develop medicines to keep people healthy, we make them for money. And the poor go without and die young. We don't build transportation to move people around, we build it for profit. And as a result it's become absurdly expensive and has driven the poor into isolation and even greater poverty. We don't do or make ANYTHING for it's intended purpose anymore because every aspect of life is just another endeavor for the great money pump of the rich to exploit for a profit. It's very stupid, and wasteful, and ineffective. But the rich keep getting richer, and they use their money to make sure the money pump just keeps on pumping.

For me the concern would be how we ensure the basic necessity of food, shelter, healthcare, and employment are sufficiently and appropriately met within the market system.

By controlling it, not for the goal of maximum profit, but for the goal of maximum effectiveness (collective well-being).

This does raise the question that if there is an obligation of society to ensure these necessities are met for everyone in society, is there a reciprocal obligation for society members to participate and contribute to society

Yes. I believe there is. But when one can survive with a modicum of effort in that regard, I believe they will find it a fair exchange.

What is the minimum required of an individual to receive a guarantee of housing, food, and healthcare? If one is able yet refuses to participate, are they still afforded access to the healthcare system or housing for example?

I'm betting that it would only take about 20 hours a week, or even less.

 

[Koldo]

We agree, differing only on the extent
of sacrificing the individual's rights.

I don't even think we agree on the same set of rights though.

Where has that worked?

I don't think limitarianism has ever been tried.

But always better than government
trying to do the same job.

Not really. Here in Brazil, as a rule of thumb it is better to be a public servant than to work for private companies. As for being a customer, it doesn't make much of a difference.

The right to conform, to serve, to sacrifice, to obey, to cluck approval.

The capital owners?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think limitarianism has ever been tried.

Good.

Not really. Here in Brazil, as a rule of thumb it is better to be a public servant than to work for private companies. As for being a customer, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Government here is predatory. Always looking
for ways to fleece us. And service is poor because
employees get paid no matter how badly they do
their job. Government endures no matter how
badly it does its job.

The capital owners?

I've dealt with businesses I found lacking.
So I switched to others. When government
is bad, there is no alternative.

Atlanta Business Owner Battles $30K Water Bill for Vacant Lot With No Water Line

A business owner in Atlanta faces a $30,000 water bill for an empty lot without a water line; his appeals to the Watershed Management have been unsuccessful.

hoodline.com

Watch Nevada Highway Patrol Officers Seize a Veteran's Life Savings Through Asset Forfeiture

"I just want to tell you Officer Brown, you're taking money out of my kids' mouths," Stephen Lara said as Nevada Highway Patrol officers confiscated his

reason.com

Ever dealt with the IRS?
They never help you save money.
They try every trick to take more, even when they're not entitled.

 

[MikeF]

Economists are just shills for the rich.

Well, it is a blanket condemnation like this that is going to result in people just tuning you out.

And yes, it would still be a market economy because commerce is still taking place. Controlled or uncontrolled, it's still commerce being engaged in.

"Markets" are just categories of commerce. People trading goods and services with each other.

Yet in a state directed economy, people are specifically *not* trading with each other. People surrender their work and product to the state and the state doles out to the people what it deems appropriate.

We can and should distinguish between systems in which the market determines prices and systems in which the state dictates prices.

We humans all pretty much need the same things to survive and thrive. If we remove all the waste and idiocy involved in capitalist profiteering we could meet these needs fairly easily and efficiantly with minimal effort on everyone's part. Once those needs are being met we can then be freed up to explore how we might serve the collective AND fulfil ourselves at the same time. And this should be our goal.

Well, what is required to survive seems to be quite low. What seems to be at question is how much over mere survival constitutes an appropriate minimum standard of living.

And contrary to what the Declaration of Independence would have us believe, all human beings are not created equal. How we best address this baked-in inequality is a complex problem. So right off the bat I'm going to say no, we do not all need the same things to thrive nor can we all thrive in the same way.

It's all pretty much the same thing. I used the word control because I know people don't like it. Our selfish selves don't like it. Our selfish selves want to act in the dark with no one looking on so we can cut corners, and gain advantage. Which is exactly why we humans need to be controlled when we interact with each other. It's also why we need to learn to put our selfishness subordinate to the well being of our collective.

Hence the development of representative democracies with institutional checks and balances.

No, we don't. EVERYTHING we make and sell we make and sell for profit. And NOT for the purpose these things were actually intended.

Again, with such extreme and exaggerated statements, folks are just going to tune you out and be deaf to whatever else follows.

We don't build or buy houses to live in, we build and buy them, now, to gain a profit. And as a result people are going homeless while houses are left abandoned and falling down all across America. We don't grow food for people to eat, we grow it for a profit. And as a result people go hungry. We don't develop medicines to keep people healthy, we make them for money. And the poor go without and die young. We don't build transportation to move people around, we build it for profit. And as a result it's become absurdly expensive and has driven the poor into isolation and even greater poverty. We don't do or make ANYTHING for it's intended purpose anymore because every aspect of life is just another endeavor for the great money pump of the rich to exploit for a profit. It's very stupid, and wasteful, and ineffective. But the rich keep getting richer, and they use their money to make sure the money pump just keeps on pumping.

Of course all these activities are engaged in for profit, to earn money, because we operating within a market system not a barter system. Currency allows us to create a standard system of valuation for dissimilar products and services. Yes, everything is made or done for money but will only earn money if it is what people want. That is why it is actually more effective and less wasteful.

And then we get to the last sentence and you touch on an issue I agree is a problem that is actually a problem and that needs to be address, but that you do not seem to clearly articulate. In a market system, net worth in excess of daily living needs can be leveraged and invested, growing independently of the individual's income from their work product, the greater the excess net worth, the greater the leverage/advantage for a variety of reasons. This is not a bad thing in and of itself except that better access to credit at better terms, tax laws that favor/shelter this type of income disproportionately advantage those who are able to participate. In addition, accumulated net worth can then be passed to the next generation giving those children an automatic advantage and head start as they enter the economy as independent adults. I think governmental laws and policies that enhance the net worth advantage for high net worth individuals should be changed.

By controlling it, not for the goal of maximum profit, but for the goal of maximum effectiveness (collective well-being).

Unfortunately, not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes "maximum effectiveness" or "collective well-being". I would agree that there are broad social conditions and needs that aren't captured by market forces such as environmental concerns, the cost to the environment not being accounted for in market pricing for example. In that regard, the government would create the market demand for social collective needs and concerns.

 

[Kfox]

What I am suggesting is that we take the giant piles of money that some individuals and corporations have amassed

Rich people don’t generally have big piles of money, they exchange their money for assets; usually assets of various enterprises. Corporations have rich people’s money, but they are using it to run their business. It would be foolish to think you could just take money away from corporations, and give it to someone you feels deserve it more without expecting it to have an effect on their ability to do business

and are using to exploit, corrupt, and abuse our whole society, away from them, and spend it back into the hands of the people they took it from. The people that actually generated all that wealth.

Are you being melodramatic? Or do you really believe there are corporations that go around taking money from people. If you are under this impression, give an example of it happening

 

[PureX]

Yet in a state directed economy, people are specifically *not* trading with each other. People surrender their work and product to the state and the state doles out to the people what it deems appropriate.
We can and should distinguish between systems in which the market determines prices and systems in which the state dictates prices.

As opposed to them surrendering their work product to the capitalists while the capitalists dole out the minimum in compensation that they can get away with, and their greed dictates the prices? I'm not seeing a big differentiation here except who is in control of the exploitation.

Well, what is required to survive seems to be quite low.

Not when you don't have it. And in a high tech culture the necessities are greatly increased. Try living in one without a reliable car, a phone, or internet. All big money pumps for the capitalists. This is a big reason why we have so many homeless in this country.

What seems to be at question is how much over mere survival constitutes an appropriate minimum standard of living.

I don't see that as being an especially difficult problem. It just depends on the overall wealth being generated. If we can afford multi-billionaires, we can afford a reasonable base lifestyle for everyone else when we take back all that excess wealth.

And contrary to what the Declaration of Independence would have us believe, all human beings are not created equal. How we best address this baked-in inequality is a complex problem. So right off the bat I'm going to say no, we do not all need the same things to thrive nor can we all thrive in the same way.

God forbid those do-nothing losers should get the same things as ME!!! This is how the oligarchs keep us fighting each other while they continue robbing us all blind. They appeal to our own selfishness and greed.

Hence the development of representative democracies with institutional checks and balances.

Something we do not have because big piles of money warp and distort and corrupt everything and everyone they touch.

And then we get to the last sentence and you touch on an issue I agree is a problem that is actually a problem and that needs to be address, but that you do not seem to clearly articulate. In a market system, net worth in excess of daily living needs can be leveraged and invested, growing independently of the individual's income from their work product, the greater the excess net worth, the greater the leverage/advantage for a variety of reasons. This is not a bad thing in and of itself except that better access to credit at better terms, tax laws that favor/shelter this type of income disproportionately advantage those who are able to participate. In addition, accumulated net worth can then be passed to the next generation giving those children an automatic advantage and head start as they enter the economy as independent adults. I think governmental laws and policies that enhance the net worth advantage for high net worth individuals should be changed.

Capital investment is not capitalism. Capitalism is giving total control over the invested enterprise to the investor. THAT is the problem. Not investment.

Unfortunately, not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes "maximum effectiveness" or "collective well-being".

Not everyone agrees on anything. But through a democratic process, a general consensus can be found. That's how it works.

I would agree that there are broad social conditions and needs that aren't captured by market forces such as environmental concerns, the cost to the environment not being accounted for in market pricing for example. In that regard, the government would create the market demand for social collective needs and concerns.

But still you want to defend the system that neglects these huge areas of social well-being. and that always will.

 

[wellwisher]

I advocate voluntary population reduction.

How about when the Democrats do population control, in a sinister way, such as with the transgender movement, where you con young people; below legal age, to unknowingly and irreversibly sterilize themselves, under the guise of a Progressive fad movement? If you have sex reassignment surgery, say bye to any babies of your own. Pretending to be the other sex, will not work the same.

The population explosion fear used to be a more public concern for Democrats and Progressives back in the 1960-70's. The sky was falling, and the earth would soon die under too many people; saved the planet from too many humans. However, all they could do was hope the people would see the doom and gloom, and have fewer children. You could not, "legally", sterilize even the worse of violators to meet the population standard. The Courts would not play ball even for rapist.

The Democrats kept to it and were finally clever enough to figured out how to get people to self sterilize, by sugar coating self sterilization, with first the tactic of the women's right to abortion; self reversible sterilization, and now school age children being prepped to self sterilize during adolescence with elected drugs and surgery.

Never take the Democrats at face value, since they have more than one face, with the worse not as obvious. The older Democrat leaders were once young and paranoid about over population. Old dogs do not change. New dogs overcame the Courts.

But in typical Democrat fashion, their solution to one "problem" created other problems due to being short sighted. Now the business community needs lots of bodies for cheap labor. They can now exploit more illegal aliens, who will not get the same protections as citizen since they are not citizens and not even have any green cards for years. Many will need to live in the shadows, waiting, and in the mean time they can easily be exploited by 1910's labor conditions. This may even depress Union wages. Go Democrats! It already happened in the Construction Industry and was partially responsible for the last Housing Crisis; the former America workers took a pay cut and could not keep up with their debt.

As far as Texas, if the Biden and the Government is in control of the border, then they will have to reimburse the states like Texas. They were better off letting the States absorb. Now, Texas cannot do anything, including help, if Big Brother is in control, less they nag at your generosity not to their standards. Texas may need to make the illegals homeless, to stay out of trouble with the over bearing Biden Government. Then it is his problem.

Another continuing Texas strategy is to double dow on sending illegals to Liberal States. If enough states get stressed due to Biden, 3/4 of the states could force an Immigration Amendment to the Constitution that will hog tie the lawless Biden who is setting up these immigrants for exploitation by donors. Remember two faces with the sinister one hidden.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about when the Democrats do population control, in a sinister way, such as with the transgender movement, where you con young people; below legal age, to unknowingly and irreversibly sterilize themselves, under the guise of a Progressive fad movement?

Is that a serious claim?

 

[Koldo]

Good.

Government here is predatory. Always looking
for ways to fleece us. And service is poor because
employees get paid no matter how badly they do
their job. Government endures no matter how
badly it does its job.

It is pretty much the same in Brazil, except that colossal private companies often provide bad service too because they can get away with it.

I've dealt with businesses I found lacking.
So I switched to others. When government
is bad, there is no alternative.

Atlanta Business Owner Battles $30K Water Bill for Vacant Lot With No Water Line

A business owner in Atlanta faces a $30,000 water bill for an empty lot without a water line; his appeals to the Watershed Management have been unsuccessful.

hoodline.com

Watch Nevada Highway Patrol Officers Seize a Veteran's Life Savings Through Asset Forfeiture

"I just want to tell you Officer Brown, you're taking money out of my kids' mouths," Stephen Lara said as Nevada Highway Patrol officers confiscated his

reason.com

Ever dealt with the IRS?
They never help you save money.
They try every trick to take more, even when they're not entitled.

I doubt a private company wouldn't do the same if it had the power to do it.

 

[PureX]

Rich people don’t generally have big piles of money, they exchange their money for assets; usually assets of various enterprises. Corporations have rich people’s money, but they are using it to run their business. It would be foolish to think you could just take money away from corporations, and give it to someone you feels deserve it more without expecting it to have an effect on their ability to do business

However they hide it, they control it, and therefor control everyone's lives associated with it. And they do so for their own gain. This is a BIG problem. It needs to be stopped.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is pretty much the same in Brazil, except that colossal private companies often provide bad service too because they can get away with it.

We have the same thing.
So I use colossal & non-colossal good companies instead.

I doubt a private company wouldn't do the same if it had the power to do it.

But they don't have that power.
So they must compete with each other,
which tends to favor the good, & weed
out the bad.

 

[PureX]

The capitalists are always blaming the government hoping no one will notice that they are controlling the government. Also, it's in their best interest to keep the government unpopular, and therefor weak, so there is no danger of the government taking back it's control to appease a popular uprising.

 

[MikeF]

As opposed to them surrendering their work product to the capitalists while the capitalists dole out the minimum in compensation that they can get away with, and their greed dictates the prices? I'm not seeing a big differentiation here except who is in control of the exploitation.

Except that your concerns can be, and are addressed in a way that preserves the benefits and advantages of a market system over a command economy.

Not when you don't have it. And in a high tech culture the necessities are greatly increased. Try living in one without a reliable car, a phone, or internet. All big money pumps for the capitalists. This is a big reason why we have so many homeless in this country.

Except that it seems we don't have any more homeless after the tech boom than before it. I'm not indifferent to the problem of homelessness or poverty, but you keep claiming that it is greatly increasing and I really don't think you can support that claim.

I don't see that as being an especially difficult problem. It just depends on the overall wealth being generated. If we can afford multi-billionaires, we can afford a reasonable base lifestyle for everyone else when we take back all that excess wealth.

You seem to think that a net worth in the millions or billions consists of money or bullion sitting in vaults somewhere. That is not how our modern economy works. There is no easily taking back all the "wealth" that you declare to be excess.

Instead of fixating on how much wealth others have (much of which only has value if people continue to believe it has value), I would suggest that it would be better to 1) uncouple the link between wealth and political influence, and 2) create mechanisms to ensure a reasonable standard of living for those who are able to participate in society, and that those who are unable to effectively participate are looked after.

God forbid those do-nothing losers should get the same things as ME!!! This is how the oligarchs keep us fighting each other while they continue robbing us all blind. They appeal to our own selfishness and greed.

<chuckles> Well that is not what was going through my mind when I wrote what I wrote. When I said all human beings are not created equally, it was in response to your comment that we all pretty much need the same things to survive and thrive, and I simply disagree. Life is hardly fair and we do not all share the same potential. There are those who need a lot more to survive (chronic or permanent disability), and as to thriving, not everyone has the capacity to thrive in the same way. I, personally, am unable to thrive either as a rocket scientist, a musician, nor as a politician.

To my mind, we want all to have the opportunity to reach their full potential while at the same time ensuring that being more abled does not equate to a greater political voice or enable greater political influence. I am optimistic that we can make progress in this regard within a market economy.

Something we do not have because big piles of money warp and distort and corrupt everything and everyone they touch.

This was in response to my saying, "Hence the development of representative democracies with institutional checks and balances."

You say that we do not have this, but do you agree that it is what we want and should strive to preserve and maintain? As I indicated above, I agree that steps should be taken to prevent the warping, distorting, and corruption of our representative democracy, including the capacity of wealth to be a source of those effects. However, addressing the effects of wealth does not necessitate attacking the existence of wealth and treating wealth as a bad thing in and of itself. Wealth accumulation has an integral and necessary role in our economy.

Capital investment is not capitalism. Capitalism is giving total control over the invested enterprise to the investor. THAT is the problem. Not investment.

That control over the invested enterprise is what enables innovation and adaptability. The world is ever changing and continually evolving. Yes, the investor has control over the invested enterprise, but exercises that control within the boundaries and rules set up by society. If problems arise, then we refine the rules.

Not everyone agrees on anything. But through a democratic process, a general consensus can be found. That's how it works.

Exactly. So we work to strengthen and preserve the democratic process. But this process extends beyond the political. With a market economy, we are also exercising our will, our "vote", by how we participate in the economy and with the economic choices that we make. Democratic political systems and market economies fit hand in glove.

But still you want to defend the system that neglects these huge areas of social well-being. and that always will.

I see myself as defending an imperfect political/economic system, one of many conceived of to date, that has the track record of 1) being compatible with our human nature, 2) provides the best opportunity for innovation, flexibility, and adaptation to new conditions, 3) of providing a high overall standard of living, and 4) provides the greatest opportunity to enjoy personal freedoms and self-expression.

My preference is to continue to build upon this foundation, working to continually improve and refine it.

 

[Kfox]

However they hide it, they control it, and therefor control everyone's lives associated with it. And they do so for their own gain. This is a BIG problem. It needs to be stopped.

Hide it? How! Bury it underground so it can get destroyed by inflation? No; they invest it and whoever controls whatever they invested in (people who run the company) are the ones that control it and effect everyone else's lives associated with that company.

 

[Kfox]

The capitalists are always blaming the government hoping no one will notice that they are controlling the government. Also, it's in their best interest to keep the government unpopular, and therefor weak, so there is no danger of the government taking back it's control to appease a popular uprising.

Capitalists controlling the government? Are you kidding me??? The Government is the only thing keeping Capitalists under control! If Capitalists controlled the Government, we wouldn't have a situation where the top 1% pays half of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pays no taxes at all; we'd have something like a flat tax where everybody pays their share of taxes. No my friend; capitalists do not control the government, they wish they could; but they don't.

 

[Secret Chief]

Is that a serious claim?

Dunno but it's funny!

 

[Revoltingest]

Dunno but it's funny!

It can be hard indeed to spot sarcasm or a Poe on RF.