The problem of Capitalism

Redistribution is what fairness is all about. Please examine your intellect.

Ask Gates and Buffet, who want to increase fairness in the system.
(of course you obfuscate the definition of fairness, hence you enclose the word fair in commas; 'fair'.

with a concern for fairness

Back to your ideologue mode ("socialism" according to you; no mention of improving the lot of the working class?

In fact I'm talking about democratic socialism; with redistribution as promoted by Gates and Buffet, on behalf of the working class and middle class.

1. Single payer health, largely paid for by eliminating exorbitant profits of insurance companies
2. Debt free education, paid for by a financial transaction tax on the parasitic financial derivatives casino.
3. A GND paid for by central bank allocation of available resources:
... money is inherently a public resource, created by the federal spending decisions of a currency-sovereign state....

but you are not interested in macroeconomics, by your own mouth, so most of what you have to say on this topic is useless - beyond the fact that individuals must take responsibility for their own decisions.

No that's not what I am talking about; you think I am because;
1. you are an ideologue, unable to see past your own definitions
2. you don't understand macroeconomics, which explains the intellectual deficit you are bringing to this topic.

No, rather sustainable use of the nation's available resources for the benefit of all, and by the way the nation CAN afford it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...if_wealth_was_equally_distributed_in_america/

"I am a firm believer in meritocratic capitalism. If a guy is doing great work, it's ok for him to earn 10 times more, or 20 times more than others -- but not thousands of times more.
There are vanishingly few uber-geniuses whose work is both handsomely paid and utterly good for society. An enormous number of high earners do us NO good; in fact, in 2008 their greed and short-sightedness crashed the world's economy. They are not beneficial.

Fact: in 2013, the median wealth of an American family was $ 81,400.00. But if all wealth in the country was divided equally (which I do not advocate, for it is against meritocracy) every family would own $ 528,420.00 in assets (!). There must be a gap to reward merit, but this is too wide. I believe the median should be much closer to the mean.

......half a million bucks...somewhat above sustenance...

...your argument fails because the system doesn't create enough above poverty jobs..

Addressed above. The best government will combine socialism AND democracy

...we wouldn't want anyone to see Trump's tax returns would we.....

Nonsense. People in a social democracy (or democratic socialism....its the TWO words together that is important) have all the freedoms they need.

1. Freedom cannot be absolute, in a world with more than one individual.
2. "social programs like welfare" it's not a luxury, if the system can't supply above poverty work for all (which it can't: hence neoliberal economists posit the NAIRU).

that's a right, and a necessity, as a any civilised community recognises. Of course you have your eye on the third world, with your 'race to the bottom' , but 3rd world poverty is caused by lack of national development, not by inherent lack of choice of individuals. .

No it's not. Individuals can rent quite successfully.

And as for collectives: here it is again:

Ownership rights are protected under Article 39 of The Property Law of the People's Republic of China, which gives the owner (or lessee in US terms?) the right to possess, utilize, dispose of and obtain profits from the real property. ... In general, rural collectives own agricultural land and the state owns urban land.

And while US infrastructure is crumbling, China has built the world's most extensive high speed rail system, which is exasperating for the ideologues in the administration.
As Ellen Brown says, we should be looking at the state owned (public) banking model, in China.

 

Yes, we've already discussed why you think that. When your only exposure to leftism is the middle-class cafe socialist, it's understandable.

 

1) Unless you plan to enforce universal work .. at one universal level, 'redistribution' is always going to be grossly unfair.

2) You cannot 'improve the lot of the working classes' without reducing the lot of the middle and upper classes. That's precisely why you can look forward to relative poverty for all. Instead of haves/have nots, it will be universal 'have a little'.

3) There are no 'social democracies'. There are only capitalist democracies. You can lie to yourself all you like, but it'll still be true. It's CAPITALISM which affords all the social programs you love. Capitalism, capitalism, capitalism. Make peace with it, or prepare for that universal relative poverty.

 

It's got nothing to do with "why he thinks that".

It's got every thing to do with your lack of understanding of macroeconomics.

'Supply side' means lowering costs of production by lowering wages, lowering taxes* and cutting workers conditions, which is what you are barracking for (in a race to the bottom in a competition with 3rd world wages).

* which in the context of balanced budgets, means reduced social benefits.

 

This is a nothing reply, only confirming your inability to support your supply side economics. Why on earth do you think such a stance is consistent with the left? The right wingers behind the nonsense approach gave the game away somewhat. Even if you're easily duped, the empirical outcome- harvesting working poverty- should have given you a tad of a clue.

 

Provision of work which the private sector fails to provide, is not "enforcement.

YOU can't, certainly, with your total lack of understanding of different economic models; but others can. Lets see, what say we halve that $500,000 I mentioned. Still well above 'relative poverty'...

Higher taxing states with higher standards of living than the US, aka 'social democracies, disprove that statement.

I'm not lying to myself, as shown above.

 

What's your definition of poverty and freedom?

 

Buy any dictionary and you find the definitions.

But, if you have any sense of economics then the definitions you are looking for (above) are highly personal. Meaning simply that a "people" make up the meanings as they go along, or as they have learned them. And as regards the latter "learning", there's a tremendous difference between the US and Europe (where I live).

My definitions are highly personal because I interpret your question in terms of "economic fairness". Which means that if you are living in the EU, you get a free post-secondary schooling (with which to find a damn-good job) and nearly-free healthcare that costs me here in France 20€ (about the same in dollars) to see my doctor who works for a National Health Service.

My questions for you:
*How much does it cost you to see your doctor and are you pleased to know that I will likely live 4 years longer than you (according to the stats)?
*Or isn't a damn good advantage to put my child through university where the average tuition-cost is less than 1K€ per year, and not the $14K in the US?

 

I asked this because you can't define poverty and freedom. It's not definite it's relative. What you're describing as capitalism in EU is not capitalism. It's a modified version. And that's what I say we should get into anywhere. Name it socialism or modified capitalism.

believes that socialism means poverty and the end of freedom. He/she is wrong.
Lafayette says capitalism can work very well you just need to be as fair as europeans. What I say is that you shouldn't even pay that 1K€ for education or 20€ for your healthcare. As humans we should have all these privileges education, healthcare, housing, apparel and food. So no one gets poor. And everyone can experience opportunities.
Now you may ask from where should a government finance it. That's where I say we should break the capitalism system a little bit.
Why should an individual own an island or a private jet? Why should the money be expended on the cars that can be driven in 300kmph speed who needs this kind of progress in ordinary life? Why should the people be that consumerist that can't stop buying new things that they don't even need? Why should the companies like phone manufacturers (owned by capitalists ofcourse) build this daily development illusion for people and instead of releasing their last update they would release their update piece by piece to enslave the consumer to their products. Today they release a phonecamera of 30Mp tomorrow they will release a phonecamera of 30.5Mp enslaving people.Why should even the consumerism phenomena exist? Why not produce as much as we need? Why should we waste the resources?
All these expenses are made so that the capitalist can have a more and more profit. Because they OWN the system anywhere even in europe. If a system can cut these expenses and actually use them to provide that 5 key components of welfare (which upper income taxation is "kind of" doing) then we can say it's a good world to live.
Crank speaks about freedom. What a vague word. How can anyone have freedom in a system of private ownership of major industries. How indeed?
And for the record I personally don't disagree with someone being that wealthy (like private jet) but only if the people's welfare be satisfied first.

 

As a trained economist, I beg to differ with the above statement. Both poverty and freedom are well defined by any dictionary.

Poverty is indeed relative. It is in relation with to anyone who is living either above or below the Poverty Threshold - which varies from country to country. In the US, for example, the Poverty Threshold is an income of $25K for a family of four. In the US, the Minimum Wage is $7.25 an hour - which amounts to around $16K of annual income.

So, the Minimum Wage in the US is well ensconced below the Poverty Threshold!

As for capitalism, since time immemorial it has been the replacement of barter with printed value-denominated paper.

You do not seem to understand the fundamental basics of a functional economy are Supply & Demand. That is, customers and suppliers who provide what customers want. In any market-economy, the price of any object or service is determined by the junction of Supply&Demand.

What most modern capitalist-economies do is try to balance a number of factors that influence Supply&Demand. Within that balance is a range of salaries that determine the cost of Supplying what customers-want. And we, the sheeple, workers have a dual advantage of employing our incomes to buy what we want (or think we need). No surprises there.

The surprise comes not at the bottom of the Income Line, but at the top, where far too few people are allowed - by means of low upper-income taxation - to earn and keep tremendous amounts of money. (Meaning "Wealth".)

Should they be allowed to do so? Only those who elect representatives to the government of the nation can decide what taxation levels are appropriate at each level of income. And history has proven that the unfair low-taxation of upper-incomes has produced the Money Mountains owned by the 1-Percenters needs to be changed. Meaning that Upper-incomes deserve far higher levels of taxation that will pay for certain public-services that support a decent lifestyle for all of us.

And what might a "decent lifestyle" require as attributes? I suggest a basic foundation is a National Healthcare System and Tertiary-education that are sensibly low-cost because their expense are subvented by means of income-taxation ...

PS: True Freedom is the ability to earn a decent salary that provides an acceptable lifestyle for the most people.

 

It doesn't matter what MY definition is (I'm much further to the left, so not a good measure), it matters what the vast majority of Leftists think those things are. And I guarantee that in 2020, the vast majority of Leftists think anything below middle-class and total freedom is 'suffering'. They are the most ardent seekers of liberty, luxury, and capitalism as you'll find.

 

Any luxury like healthcare, welfare, free education, universal housing, food, clothing etc when not self-produced must be funded, and the only way that much largess can ever be funded is via robust capitalism. The minute you start to punish enterprise via 'redistribution', you can say goodbye to all the aforementioned luxuries. What do you REALLY want?

PS: Socialism would never tolerate a situation in which some work and some don't. That can only happen under Capitalism.

 

To call education/shelter/food/clothing a luxury is such a right wing nonsense. Crikey, can't you at least pretend?

 

I said FREE education/healthcare/welfare/clean water/housing etc is a luxury. And it freaking well is. What on earth do think is the difference between us and the Third World, dear?

 

Yes you did. Standard right wing comment. Quite contemptible comment too, given none of those things are luxuries.

 

Could you possibly be any more outrageously privileged in your thinking, than to regard those things as your god-given right?

Zero context. Full blown ivory-towerism at its finest.

 

Hahahaha! You state that basic necessities are luxuries and I'm being "outrageously privileged"? No chum, you're being ignorant.

 

Zero context. It's this grotesque First World thinking that gets my goat more than most.

Spend a few years in the poorest parts of the Third World, then try telling us you're entitled to that stuff.

 

You are just makin' $#! up again.

False, as you know.

Why are you falsely pretending that only DOIs can be economic evidence?

Because that is not what "evidence" means.

 

This is so right wing! "Yeah but, poor people are rich like". To call necessities luxuries is just cretinous. Talk to yourself.

 

Its a simple point. Does your opinion have any economic support? You can't refer to one economist in support of your guff. You're reliant on conspiracy theory over it (making you as bleedin useful as someone who believes Hitler still lives and, by selling sausages in Argentina, he will be engineering the Fourth Reich....)

 

The following statements, especially the final one, constitute the gist of my position, and were signed by dozens of eminent economists, including four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates in economics:

"It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of government revenue. While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land in taxes, they do not collect nearly as much as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of taxes that impede their economies--taxes on such things as incomes, sales and the value of capital."

"Social collection of the rent of land and natural resources serves three purposes. First, it guarantees that no one dispossesses fellow citizens by obtaining a disproportionate share of what nature provides for humanity. Second, it provides revenue with which governments can pay for socially valuable activities without discouraging capital formation or work effort, or interfering in other ways with the efficient allocation of resources. Third, the resulting revenue permits utility and other services that have marked economies of scale or density to be priced at levels conducive to their efficient use."

"The rental value of land arises from three sources. The first is the inherent natural productivity of land, combined with the fact that land is limited. The second source of land value is the growth of communities; the third is the provision of public services. All citizens have equal claims on the component of land value that arises from nature. The component of land value that arises from community growth and provision of services is the most sensible source of revenue for financing public services that raise the rental value of surrounding land. These services include roads, urban transit networks, parks, and public utility networks for such services as electricity, telephones, water and sewers. A public revenue system should strive to collect as much of the rent of land as possible, allocating the part of rent derived from nature to all citizens equally, and the part derived from public services to the governmental units that provide those services. When governments collect the increase in land value that results from the provision of services, they are able to offer services at prices that represent the marginal social cost of these services, promoting efficient use of the services and enhancing the rental value of the land where the services are available. Government agencies that use land should be charged the same rentals as others for the land they use, or services will not be adequately financed and agencies will not have adequate incentive or guidance for economizing on their use of land."

"Some economists might be tempted to suggest that the rent can be collected publicly simply by selling land outright at auction. There are a number of reasons why this is not a good idea. First, there is so much land to be turned over to private management that any effort to dispose of all of it in a short period would result in an extreme depression in prices offered. Second, some persons who could make excellent use of land would be unable to raise money for the purchase price. Collecting rent annually provides access to land for persons with limited access to credit. Third, subsequent resale of land would enable speculators to make large profits unrelated to any productive services they offer, resulting in needless inequity and dissatisfaction. Fourth, concern about future political conditions would tend to depress offers. Collecting rent annually permits the citizens of future years to capture the benefits of good future public policies. Fifth, because investors tend to be averse to risk, general uncertainty about the future will tend to depress offers. This risk aversion is sidestepped by allowing future rental payments to be determined by future conditions. Finally, the future rent of land can more justly be claimed by future generations than by today's citizens. Requiring annual payments from the users of land allows each year's population to claim that year's rent. While the proceeds of sales could be invested for the benefit of future generations, not collecting the money in advance guarantees the heritage of the future against political excesses."

"Users of land should not be allowed to acquire rights of indefinite duration for single payments. For efficiency, for adequate revenue and for justice, every user of land should be required to make an annual payment to the local government, equal to the current rental value of the land that he or she prevents others from using."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_(1990)

 

So not actually an economic argument referring to either efficiency wages or the wage-productivity gap? Just Georgist grunt

 

Thank you for admitting that those economists, including the Nobel laureates, agree with me.

 

They agree that land matters. Everyone acknowledges that. They do not agree with your silly comments over efficiency wages and the wage-productivity gap. Please stop misrepresenting, it is an ugly trait.

(Amuses me mind you to see you make a big deal of nobel winners, given you insist economists refuse to agree with you because they aren't able to think objectively)