The problem of Capitalism

That's the hard-way.

All Uncle Sam need do is tax the piss outta the Ultra-rich. They have NO REASON WHATSOEVER to accumulate such fantastic amounts of money. None!

Some Americans seem to think that becoming ultra-rich requires an enormous amount of intelligence. Admittedly, it helps, but what promotes even further the fact that the rich get richer naturally is that they are "at the right place and at the right time". Any number of NYC financial analysts will help then for just a very modest fee-percentage of the profits.

There was no predicting the fact that anybody would or could get rich - it just happened. (Unless of course they inherited the BigMoney. Like Donald Dork's kids who now promenade around the White House as if "Daddy owns it!")

Worse yet is the fact that once-rich they get richer. Yes, money begets money. And far too many Americans think that such a feat is "an act of God".

Of course it isn't. It is an economic occurrence of circumstance that happens because Uppe-income Taxation allows it to happen! Taxed, those funds could be employed to better use in sending our kids on to a post-secondary education and thus guaranteeing them a decent standard-of-living. And even a National Healthcare System to prolong their lifespan.

Not bad those two objectives. Which Europe has achieved already ...

 

Gosh your "freedom and the sovereignty of the individual" that is "totally incompatible with any sort of socialism or collectivism" is tiresome.

1. Freedom...
a) to do as you would strive to do, in the pursuit of happiness... OK.
b) to live in a community that facilitates the common welfare, and hence ensures nobody languishes in poverty...
What's the problem?
(Oh, I keep forgetting ...we may have to confront the incompatibility of "invisible hand" competitive 'free' markets", with universal above poverty participation in the economy).

2. Sovereignty of the individual...who gives a **** about 'sovereignty', if freedom, in a). and b). above, are in place? Sovereignty is for sovereigns, ie kings/queens, who are only figureheads these days (at last!).

 

Socialism doesn't infringe anything on anyone. I think you're talking about totalitarianism.

 

Then Wolff is either an idiot, or 10 years out of date. Non whites are currently the most successful (on the standard measures - wealth, income, education etc) in America.

 

1) Now you're getting it. The collective provides strength in number, where the individual's strength is insufficient for reasonable survival (in any given time/place).

2) If you regard the provision (at the cost of decades of going without) of full access and use of property to those unable to secure their own, as greedy and self-interested, then you and I don't exist in the same reality.

3) Bernie Sanders hasn't an ounce of socialism in him. He's a capitalist luxury-seeker - free education and healthcare are luxuries afforded only by capitalism. 'zero unemployment' is Disneyesquely stupid - you can't make people want to work when they're determined not to.

4) Only at the point of a gun. Is that your goal? If not, then you have to accept the reality of free choice.

 

And when those tax dollars you need for your Big Plan dry up because there will no longer be any point in being ultra-rich?

As always, the 'free lunch' crowd refuse to see the GIANT elephant in the room - human nature.

 

Pass...though Pavlov's dogs are informative...

And Bernie Sanders would like to ensure everyone partakes of those rights in the US. Problem?

 

OK.

No; I know "greedy and self-interested" are the reality (as explained fully in observing the predations of the natural world, instinctive survival-oriented, animal behaviour in this 'red tooth and claw' world, and humans with their awareness of 'justice' straddling the two realities.

Nonsense. Free education and healthcare are available for all, in our highly productive modern economies. Neoliberalism - in which an inadequate distribution of goods and services is the reality - is the problem. [btw, MMT shows how the recessions, underemployment and entrenched poverty of capitalist neoliberal economies can be eliminated. You may wish to investigate].

Bernie is a social democrat - by his own mouth. btw, this should be informative for you, re 'democratic socialism...poor Trish....

https://twitter.com/McGaucho/status/1166046941559570433?s=20

The point is: these are not luxuries, they are affordable - as in Denmark.

The problem is not that people don't want to work; we have already discussed motivation at length.

Already discussed. Your "free choice" is nothing more than a reflection of the predatory natural world, not mitigated by the conscious intervention that humans (via their cortex brain) are able to bring to this world.

 

I'll let both Marx and Wolff speak for themselves.

Have you studied MMT?

Basic axioms:

1. Nations face real resource constraints.
2. Currency issuing governments do not face purely financial constraints.

and hence the central banks of such governments can fund counter-cyclical fiscal policy, freeing the public sector from the tyranny of money creation in the private banking sector.

 

BIG-BUSINESS & PROFITS, PROFITS, PROFITS

Oh, come off it, will you. Nothing of the kind is happening anywhere in the US. Except in your tired mind.

Here below is what's going in farming today, and it aint nice, from here: Center for American Progress - A Fair Deal for Farmers - excerpt:

Once again BigBusiness is messing with the local output of an industry, this time the consolidation of the "Farm Industry". America cannot seem to let go of its immense surge to consolidate industries as has happened significantly across the board (in all industrial/commercial domains). And for what purpose?

The consequence of which is to enhance profits but by means that reduce competition - and thus make the cost of living higher for all consumers. It has happened time and time again because governments do not apply the anti-Trust Laws. From here:

It is always the same - antitrust laws go further back than a century! It's the Consolidation of Industries for the sole reason of Profits, profits, profits & Money, money, money - and nothing will change until a anti-liberal government puts competition back into America's business-equation wherever necessary.

And that notion is least welcome with the pro-business Replicants ...

 

Pass...though Pavlov's dogs are informative...

And Bernie Sanders would like to ensure everyone partakes of those rights in the US. There is no freedom or liberty in financial insecurity - of half the population, no less!.

No. Physically more dangerous work (still mostly performed by men) will of course result in more deaths on the job. But those are small numbers c.f. total male and female employment, and female wages are less than men on average - it's this point that Wolff is making to posit the idea of female disadvantage in a downturn ie Wolff is not saying anything about the higher no. of deaths suffered by men at work, he is saying women, like groups other than dominant whites, suffer from the 'last on, first off' syndrome of capitalist cycles. I'll let Wolff argue that gender case, it's a side issue in my estimation. As you say, women have different lives....but of course you will draw your own conclusions, based on your ideology that everyone regardless of who they are, has an equal chance to succeed. But you have to deal with the 'last on, first off' issue Wolff has raised.

Addressed above: you raised the matter of 'dangerous' work. Wolff is claiming the least advantaged, which includes women who are less securely attached to the workforce (- by definition, they have the babies) - are the worst affected in an economic downturn.

And you have no interest in social disadvantage either. That's the point.

I already said no. (can't you read, or is it just sheer ideological blindness?)

Now you are positing your favourite strawmen (a Pavlovian response, to be sure).

I'm here to argue the superiority of Bernie Sanders 'democratic socialism' model {and possibly MMT, if Bernie finds himself constrained by the "how will you pay for it" refrain of (greedy) Conservatives....

Chinese 'state' capitalism avoided the US inspired GFC; but even in China, capitalism's inadequacies need urgent attention.

ah.. you mean as with identity politics... like the Left 'needing' black poverty, as a reason for the Left's existence? Heard it all before...pathetic.

You mean the half of Americans who cannot find $1000 in savings to deal with an emergency?
Could be a systems problem there....

Universities must remain institutions of free investigation. eg, an examination of entrenched disadvantage in the nation is also vital.

Yes, and for a period (c. 1950 to 1980) CA had a sizable prosperous middle class, within a neoliberal 'invisible hand' free market economy. What went wrong?

Not sure how to respond to that, but...

1. Progressives tend to be agnostic, humanist, and community minded.
2. The worst of the church? eg, Child abuse? What about the best of the church: Love God and love one-another?

Sorry. Your "individual rights" - as conceived by you - are nothing more than an expression of your instinctive greed, of which you are unaware - which is why you have no awareness of the rights to life, liberty, and security of those less capable than you, to attain those same rights.

In fact it is the violence of your greed that damages our human world, ensuring it remains like the slaughterhouse in which we evolved.

OTOH, I'm willing to face up to my greed, and accept rule of law in order to promote the common welfare, and with it life, liberty, and security, thereby enabling "the pursuit happiness" by all.

 

You are confusing Apples with Oranges just because both are fruits.

Economically, the cost of hard-drive storage and the National Debt (and God-knows-what-next) have nothing to do with one another. Nobody is crowding "anything out".

You might try hard at comparing apples-with-apples ... because there is no relation whatsoever attributable between data-storage costs and the price of cultivable land in Idaho ...

 

Yes, except for the obdurate Right-wing in America. With their ludicrous one-liner sarcasm because they cannot Think AND Offer a cogent response. Which is the virtual life's blood of any DEBATE Forum.

I frankly think that Bernie is correct on the most important Left-wing political objectives (Income Disparity and free Post-secondary Education). Which would only put the US on par with the European Union that has had these public-services since about 20/40 years (depending upon when a country joined*).

In fact, the most prescient of them all was the British Left that passed into law a Public Healthcare System just after WW2. Whilst back in the US, we were basking in the "beauty of a capitalist system that rose to the challenge of the Nazis".

We forgot that winning wars is one thing, but providing (after the war is over) for a country includes the dire need of social-services. In fact, for a large part of the post-war years Uncle Sam has collectively denigrated social advances. Which, ipso-facto, require very high taxation on upper-incomes to finance social-services - like National Healthcare and Post-secondary Education that are accessible to ALL citizens.)

It is often extremely difficult to understand the crassness of politics in a supposedly "Free Country" that refuses to take care of its people health-wise of even assist the poorest of them to obtain a Tertiary-level Education with which to find decent jobs. Just because the taxation necessary to do so is so very high. But, so what? If the result is a longer and better lifestyle for all Americans?

Both Healthcare and Education are central to a decent lifestyle ...

*In fact, after the demise of the Soviet Union and its Eastern-Europe vassals, these latter countries all jumped at the possibility of joining the European Union. Which happened despite the fact that the EU was obliged to spend enormous funding to help bring the countries "up to par" with their western neighbors.

 

Oh. That’s evil and dangerous—forcing some to slave for others. Ick.

 

I find the comparison rather revealing.

There is a decent level of competition and innovation in the hardware industry, which has helped push down price/gb of storage capacity, and in less space.

Land prices, on the other hand, go up per square meter. Could it be that the "crowding out" has been happening automatically since title was first issued?

There seems to be neither competition nor innovation in the land market. Our ability to use the existing supply of land more efficiently also only increases price.

How about this:

Imagine there was a company that owned all the land. Each shareholder of that company thus has a small or large share of this land ownership and the proceeds therefrom. You can buy shares. You can sell shares. But no matter how many shareholders there are, it doesn't make it not a monopoly.

With regards to land owning, there is NO NEED to have such a company. As soon as you own land, you effectively have a share as if there was such a company. Land is FIXED IN SUPPLY and is thus ALWAYS monopoly. It CANNOT BE PRODUCED. It doesn't matter how many shareholders/landowners there are. Make sense?

 

Let's come-off it, shall we.

The US has enormous space in which to build homes. With the sole exception of older very large cities like New York and Chicago, etc.

The issue is bringing jobs to those homes. Well, it's happening right before your eyes. This "thing" called the Internet.

Already, programmers with the right-skills, do software development at home. They are paid by the hour that they develop software over the Internet on the owners site!

Does anybody really have to go into an office today to read a screen they could read at home. Even meetings amongst colleagues with the same business interest could remain home at least two days of the work-week (if not more). Especially if they are sales-personnel ...

Even contact with any local, state or national government is being done today via the Internet ... !

 

Building and maintaining houses is a productive activity. The land under the Empire State Building used to be leased from somebody else who didn't own the building. There are lots of farmers who merely lease the land they use to grow their food. Owning land and building/maintaining improvements/using land are entirely distinct economic roles even though it can be one and the same person practicing those roles.

If the landowner never existed, the land would be there anyways. If the house builder or automaker never existed, neither houses nor cars would exist. You know that this is true.

The landowner in his role as landowner cannot ever provide anything to anyone. He can only deny access to what was already there. You know that this is true.

Cities are more convenient.

 

I agree. The landowner having others slave for him is evil and dangerous. One could say that landowners (if the land has any value) de facto enslaves the productive. If you sold a piece of land for $1,000,000 that essentially means you just pocketed 30x times the median income of a person in the USA. Since the landowner, in his capacity as a landowner, CLEARLY doesn't contribute anything, this can only be the proceeds of taking from others products of labor without contributing anything to production accordingly oneself. This is not difficult.

"It is true that all valuable things have the quality of enabling their owner to obtain labor or the produce of labor in return for them or for their use. But with things that are themselves the produce of labor such transactions involve an exchange—the giving of an equivalent of labor-produce in return for labor or its produce. Land, however, is not the produce of labor; it existed before man was, and, therefore, when the ownership of land can command labor or the products of labor, the transaction, though in form it may be an exchange, is in reality an appropriation. The power which the ownership of valuable land gives, is that of getting human service without giving human service, a power essentially the same as that power of appropriation which resides in the ownership of slaves. It is not a power of exchange, but a power of blackmail, such as would be asserted were some men compelled to pay other men for the use of the ocean, the air or the sunlight." - Henry George

 

Nothing in your post is true

 

Nothing in your post is true. You do not have a right to my property. If you try and take it, you will be stopped. That is reality. Comparing owning land to owning humans is retarded.

 

If you believe the US and Botswana are free you are delusional. Furthermore I am sure my knowledge of economics dwarfs whatever you think you know. The proof of the knowledge of economics is most accuratly measured in the financial success of the individual. I am willing to wage your financial success has been abysmal at best...

 

Your ramblings are for the most part incomprehensible at best. If you do not understand that freedom and the sovereignty of the individual are the foundation upon which any sound and moral economy must be based then, you do not have even the beginnings of the knowledge necessary to understand this subject.

 

Socialism at it root is contingent on taking from one individual to give to another. That is infringement.

 

Simple solution. Capitalism. No guns. Just money. (It takes money to live; it takes guns to enslave.)

 

If you do not have the right to protect your life, then the right to life is meaningless.