Fundamental necessities of any economic system

Let's try learning first-'n-foremost what is Capitalism:
Capitalism (sociological)= an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Note that the key-word is Wealth, not Income. Of course, Wealth is merely the result of Taxed Income. Which is why there is such a hullaballoo about taxation and levels thereof. Because, without a sociological definition of what is the purpose of an economic system, then one can easily think (wrongly) that it is all about the accumulation of Wealth.

The purpose of an economic system is most certainly not that, regardless of the fact that such happens when taxation is manipulated specifically for precisely that purpose. Which is the awful case that afflicts America today.

The first-and-foremost purpose of any economic-system is not the accumulation of Wealth but the fair distribution of Income such that most individuals can live comfortably.

The US today, like most developed countries, is a capitalist market-economy the purpose of which is taxation that benefits the accumulation of value by a select group of individuals. The consequences of that fact are what differentiates the US from Social Democracies. In Social Democracies, the capitalist market-economy institutes high-taxation to assure the guaranteed benefits of certain key political objectives. (As expressed in the previous paragraph.)

Foremost of which are National Healthcare Services as well as very low-cost Tertiary Education, and in general the provision of societal benefits indicated in the first two levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

Foremost of the above sociological needs are the monetary-means for assuring at the very least the first two layers. Which means that basic economic rules must be made/implemented to assure that the most people in the nation are assured at the very least those two fundamental necessities - physiological and safety.

Post Scriptum: The above Hierarchy of Needs was first proposed by Maslow in the 1940s, which is now, today, 75 years ago. And we have still, as a nation, not found the means to implement the basic first two levels ...

 

The European Social Model - which I suggest heartily that we all read to complete our understanding of the debate-dynamic here.

Excerpt:

Live 'n learn ...

 

simple:
1) peaceful mutually agreed upon economic relationships,
2) survival depends on supply of new inventions to increase customers' standard of living faster than competition

 

Weird, coercion is the norm in capitalism (e.g. we wouldn't have underpayment if we only had mutually beneficial exchange)

Sounds like creative destruction, an approach which is used to suggest socialism is inevitable. Weird again!

 

Once again you demonstrate that you haven't the foggiest understanding of socialism (or even capitalism). Or, for that matter, its successor, Social Democracy. (Key words: "social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy")

If ignorance were bliss, you'd be in heaven ..

 

In reality ignorance is hell and socialism is ignorance of human nature and a road straight to that destination.

 

You still peddling the lie that social democracy is a successor of socialism? Wow.

Note that you couldn't actually respond to the points made. Underpayment is indeed the norm in capitalism (monopsonistic power just needs for job search frictions to exist). And Schumpeterian creative destruction, ironically often used by free marketeers, does indeed refer to how socialism is the result of capitalism's success.

 

Sounds nice doesn't it. And then there's america:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

 

Because it is.

Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. Social Democracy functions in a market-economy were private companies own the means of production. But not all, since many services that otherwise cannot be "marketed" (due to their key importance) are provided by governments or government-subventions.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ....

Bloated nonsense.

Nobody but nobody quotes Schumpeter anymore. The science of Economics is nowadays highly mathematical, the results of which are about as interesting as warm-pee ...

 

Sorry but your just preaching the usual iconoclast nonsense of the Rabid Right that haven't an iota of understanding as regards simple economics or, for that matter, Social Democracies.

Socialism for the aristocracy? Just what are you smoking?

Enough of the silly (and useless) word-games ...

 

Can you refer to one respected political economist who makes that claim?

Ludicrous claim. See, for example, post-Hayekian market socialism (which effectively restricts government to supporting investments according to social return)

Social democracy is just 'capitalism with a little less poverty'. There's nothing much more about it!

This comes across like one of your better thought out arguments. Well done! I love to see development.

An important figure like Schumpeter and you come back with this churlishness? Golly.

Weird. Strange that Science Direct gives 6,308 hits just with Schumpter.

Economics continues to be vibrant and have numerous different schools of thought. You seem to be attempting to justify your economic knowledge hole ...

 

Look around, we are in the midst of transferring even more societal wealth to the aristocracy even as we type.

 

VOTING MANIPULATION

That's not "socialism"! You're playing with words.

It is difficult enough to have a decent debate regarding the modern anarchy happening in the US without people muddling exchanges with nonsense.

Language lesson, anarchy = a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. Aka, "anything goes" ...

Amongst those "other controlling systems" is just plain, old common-sense* ...

*Of the kind, "how can a candidate who won the popular vote have lost the election for office?" What kind of democracy is that? One riddled by the cancer of voter-manipulation, that's what.

 

DEFINE SOCIETAL WEALTH

Some help:
Societal - of or relating to society as a whole.
Wealth* - Typically derived as Income net-of-taxation. (Which, minus debt, becomes Net Worth.) But also, a plentiful supply of a particular desirable thing, such as plenitude or abundance of well-being.

I actually like the two-words together, Societal & Wealth, because they expand the dimension of the one word (wealth) all to often taken for pure monetary value in a society far to orientated towards the accumulation of riches. (As ours most certainly is.)

But, just what is the wealth of a society other than in a monetary sense? It must include "values". A value is the regard in which something is held; iow, its importance, worth, or usefulness to all. Such as honesty, fairness, sharing, esteem, equitability, and the equality of chance or opportunity.

*Better known in terms of "real wealth" or "net worth". What's the point of having a million-dollars (of wealth) if your total debt amounts to one million plus one dollar?

 

Speaking as an american, our wealth as a society has gotten dangerously (for a peaceful, healthy, open, deomocratic society) concentrated into the hands of a few of privilege and it has been because of our propagandized creation mythology and the "values" of the corporate state.

 

The state of the american economic system is obvious to even the most casual of observers:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

 

what socialilzed losses?? you have learned 57 times that is absurd moronic libcommie garbage yet you repeat it?
loans were paid back in months and depression was avoided, while liberals bail out failed individuals daily, for a life time, who never pay back a penny!!

Shall we go for 58?

 

If I'm in danger because Bill Gates has so much money and gives so much to charity please tell me where the danger is or are you just being used again by your libcommie handlers.

And of course I would be in less danger if the libcommies took his money at gun point- right?

 

You not worried about the productivity gap? Golly. The whole basis of free market economics is that folk are paid according to their value.

 

subject is not productivity but danger I am in because Bill Gates has so much money. I've managed to survive despite his money for decades now and in fact don't feel any danger at all but rather waiting for next new products or charity or disease cure. Gates must be sneaking up behind me???

 

You miss the point. The productivity gap automatically informs us that coercion is the norm in the labour contract, artificially inflaming inequalities. Why aren't you worried about that?

 

wrong of course, productivity is down because capitalism is down.

 

Try to respond to what I post. "PRODUCTIVITY GAP"

 

So, now go find how many hits "Keynes" gets!

I can agree on this. What (else) do you expect me to do in a "debate-forum"?

Social Democracies are the next-step in the advancement of fairness and equitability in dynamic market-economies, which have proven to be the best way to provide the means necessary for our existence.

The US is a prime-example of how refusal to implement social-democrat economic model leads to 0.1% of the population garnering as much Wealth as the other 90%. (Which is reflected in the work of Saez&Co at the UofCal economics department, and shown here.)

Admit it, you live in one of the most Economically Unfair Countries to have evolved since medieval times!

Heaven help America ...

 

WE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY AN UNFAIR COUNTRY AS REGARDS INCOME TAXATION

You're right in your analysis, but I wonder how much fellow Yanks understand the very nature of the problem.

Historically, it goes back to Reckless Ronnie (and even further to LBJ) - both of whom signed into law significant basic tax-reductions. The rest of the rot came from the IRS interpretation of "Carried-interest" tax. The US never ever should have reduced upper-income taxation. The ability to amass fortunes by manipulating "deals with the IRS" in a market-economy is almost unlimited. Donald Dork is prime-example right before our eyes.

As I see it, our market-economy has two fundamental elements:
*The ability for individuals to maximize their earnings potential.
*The goal that earnings should be (not evenly distributed) fairly distributed after taxation.

Why is it that that written above should become our tax-objectives. Because we have 0.1% of our families living like liveried monarchs of ancient Europe - whilst 14% of the population is mired below the Poverty Threshold ($24K per year for a family of four).

JUST THE FACTS IN GRAPHICS

In any educated society of individuals who believed fundamentally in the above precepts we Americans would not have the outrageous lack of fairness in the distribution of Income:


If you think that the top 5% of American families "worked hard for their average $350K per annum", then you have gone beyond the pale. They work no harder than the lower classes. They just get paid much more and are taxed a a great deal less since the 1980s (Uncle Reckless Ronnie's administration):

Here follows a pictorial description of what has happened to After-tax Income in the USofA (from here):



Get it? As a nation:
*The Top 1Percenters have in the period shown (1979/2013) increased their annual Weath (Income minus Taxation) by close to 200%. Whilst,
*The bottom 20% have increased theirs by 46%. Meaning,
*A difference of more than almost 4 to 1!

Need more be really said? We, the sheeple, just can't win due to the Unfairness of Present Upper-income Taxation!

What a bunch of suckers we are to let this happen ... ?!?