ForumsWEPRA price worth paying?

54 7306
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Capitalism is just one of many economic systems. The form we in the West live under today is a curious mix of Keynesianism and the Chicago School, although mostly the latter. This shift away from Keynesianism to Chicago School economics has had many implications, although now, let's just focus on the distribution of wealth. It was a system put in place and championed by the Thatcher and Reagan administrations in the mid 1980s, and has survived today with few challenges to monetarism, despite the fact that both the UK and the USA have experienced steady rises in levels of inequality since its implementation.

I'd like to veer the discussion away from the tired and tried debate of capitalism vs communism, and shift the focus to the deficiencies of capitalism in terms of wealth distribution. Capitalism was a system championed by liberals on the philosophical basis of equality of opportunity. However, as the role of government has been steadily eroded since the end of WW2 through the shift of focus from unemployment to inflation, coupled with mass deregulation and privatisation, the defeat of democratic socialism is abject, and the victory of the free market is absolute. However disturbing trends showing the failure of the free market to even gaurantee equality of participation, let alone equality of opportunity indicate that it is far from the allocatively efficient invisible hand Smith spoke of in the 18th century.

Thus, what I must ask to those who would defend such a system, do you really believe in the free market? And if so why. If you don't, and would like to change anything about it, what single aspect would you concentrate upon?

(I understand there are far lefties who'd like to get their views in here, but please try and keep it restricted to capitalism for the moment, as you'll have a chance to discuss fundamentally different systems in the second half of the thread)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts and stats
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The wealthiest 1% of adults alone had 40% of all global assets in 2000, and the wealthiest 10% of adults owned 85% of the world total. Study

Simultaneously, nearly 1/3rd of the earth lives on less than 3$ per day. 2001 figures

As a silver lining, ''The proportion of the developing world's population living in extreme economic poverty - defined as living on less than $1.25 per day (at 2005 prices, adjusted to account for the most recent differences in purchasing power across countries) - has fallen from 52 percent in 1981 to 26 percent in 2005.''

Nevertheless, wealth disparities continue to increase:

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/1999/0999collins.gif

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/Wealth83_04.gif
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/wealth.jpg
http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/eliten/Robber%20Barons-Dateien/image21.gif

What (if anything) needs to be done about this? You should be able to deduce from the first half of the OP where my economic sympathies lie, but for those who have been unable to do so, I support immediate social justice.

(For all those far lefties, here's your chance to get involved.)

Oh. Also I realise that any jacka** can criticise, but rest assured I'll happily flesh out my proposals later, but I'd like to get some replies before I do.

  • 54 Replies
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Who would control the big businesses? Would they be owned by the government? If they aren't owned by the government, how would inheritance work in this system?


People work via this school system to get to the top of these companies. When their time is up as CEO, they are replaced by the next most able as shown through education stratification.

That said, as a result of this system, I think you'd almost certainly seea significant reduction in the number of big businesses out there.

Would the system revolve around a big government that suplies the people, or a small government that is supplied by the people?


Both are different phrases describing the same amount of government intervention. The government would have a larger role than it does now, although once the system has been set up, and the initial reforms made, they would seek merely to maintain the system, not run it.

It also sounds like the jobs people get will rely on how well they do in school. I personally have very little faith in school systems.


Neither do I, which is why a more socialistic government backdrop would be necessary to implement the vast new needs of such a school system. Specifically, private schools would be abolished, and the whole syllabus would be changed to be more focused. The way it is now, children are encouraged to do a wide range of topics, and then choose at university level. I'd like children to be encouraged to pursue their strengths and neglect their weaknesses, since a nation of specialists doesn't need all rounders.

I think it is perfectly fair because most billionaires have to work extremely hard to make their money.


I'm guessing you're not one of the people that lives on less than $2 per day.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

I'm not sure if you've ever heard of Noam Chomsky's theory on this. I don't agree with all his ideas, butthere's definitely some very good stuff in here.


Oh definitely. I love Gnome Chumsky.

The way I was taught capitalism (especially from those who benefitted from the markets) was that it was the greatest form of meritocracy: if you try hard you will succeed, if you're lazy you will fail and will not deserve any help. Now this kind of retribution hard wired into my moral system to the point where I thought 'Capitalism is great and fair!' That was before I realised that capitalism over time tends to erode a meritocratic system.


This is why I mentioned its relevance to feudalism.
Has capitalism made such a huge leap over so short of a time to create a fair society from the ashes of a greatly unfair one?
I think the historical aspect of the development of capitalism is important.

And as a Marxist, I think capitalism is a hierarchical system that is not too different from previous economic models. The only thing that has changed is the power structure, but it still contains two greatly opposing classes.

I think it is perfectly fair because most billionaires have to work extremely hard to make their money


Bill Gates makes over a few thousand dollars a SECOND. That means, if he dropped a $1000 bill on his way to the office, it'd be a waste of time to bend down and pick it up.
Gates would have to do millions hours of labor to achieve 60 billion.

To even have that much wealth by fair labor is not even possible.
How is it that he makes $300-400 grand an hour while people working in sweatshops for 16 hours a day make less than few dollars a day?

My proposed solution would be to abolish the state and hierarchical capitalism; To give people themselves complete freedom over the economic and political aspects of society.

Society should be organized by those who labor it and through direct democracy and voluntary organizations.
By abolishing classes, all of humanity would share common interests.
By giving these workers control society would be organized to meet the interests generally pursued by the working class.

I am not sure if I understand your proposed solution. What do you believe is the negative factor of capitalism that causes inequality, and how does your envisioned society change this?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

The government would have a larger role than it does now, although once the system has been set up, and the initial reforms made, they would seek merely to maintain the system, not run it.


The only problem with this is that there's nothing that could stop the government from running the system. With a smaller government, the people could much more easily defy their government without losing everything they own. A bigger government could take everything they own away, making those people servants to the state if they want to live well at all.

For a third world nation where the people already have a lack of power, I can see this as a possible solution. However, it wouldn't stop the government by any means from being truly corrupt if they wanted to. I believe you may have underestimated just how much room there would be for corruption, or maybe you also knew of this flaw. But I digress, for a third world nation, this would probably be a much better system.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

To even have that much wealth by fair labor is not even possible.
How is it that he makes $300-400 grand an hour while people working in sweatshops for 16 hours a day make less than few dollars a day?


Because he makes money for every PC sold. Almost everyone in developed nations have a PC. Bill Gates may not have to do manual work, and he may have teams of people desinging software for him, but he did his share of work at the start. Does he need all that money? No, but he's selling his product. Bill Gates is making money off products, which is fair. Bill Gates does play the system and he is ruthless in business. He reminds his friends that work for other companies to never trust him with their secrets, because he will do whatever he can with those secrets to crush his opponants.

Bill Gates may not be the most noble person, but at least he is selling a product for his income.

If there's anybody who should be attacked, it should be the CEOs who make money off of insurance. Making money off money is the true crime. Insurance was great as a safety net that you could choose to pay for. Now, you can't drive withour insurance. If you get into an accident and harm someone, insurance will cover you. However, most people don't get into accidents that cost high medical bills and car damage is often already payed for in insurance bills by the time your insurance actually has to pay to repair your car; if you haven't payed off the damages in insurance, the insurance companies will still make that money up by raising your rates.

Bill Gates makes his money off of sales because people willingly buy his products. Bill Gates has a lot of stuff that is protected by copyright laws, a result of big government, that should be up by now, but aren't. Copyright laws used to make sure people got their due profit before they could be reproduced. Now, copyright laws last too long. Bill gate's great great grandsons will be making a profit after Bill himself passes away.

At least he's making his money off sales. It's not nearly as crooked as forcing people to pay a company, such as the case with insurance.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Copyright laws used to make sure people got their due profit before they could be reproduced.


Should have said:

Copyright laws used to make sure people got their due profit before other companies could reproduce their product.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

The ideal society would be a fundamentally meritocratic one, with enough of a socialistic structure to ensure equality of opportunity for all. In practical terms, this means starting with one standard school, and over time splitting children into tiers depending on their performance.

People work via this school system to get to the top of these companies. When their time is up as CEO, they are replaced by the next most able as shown through education stratification.

I have two main problem with this:
1) When students perform well in school, it only shows that they are able to succeed at something that already exists. For instance, Isaac Newton wouldn't have been able to show off his profound calculus skills in highschool, because he didn't "invent" calculus until later in life (yes, I know he was but a co-inventor, but you get my point). How would your education system recognize people who are geniuses in fields that aren't created yet? What about people who can succeed despite a lack of formal schooling, like H.G. Wells or Andrew Jackson? If your system is entirely dependent on academic success, wouldn't these people get screwed over?

2) The problem with standardized education is that people aren't all the same. What consitutes comptence in one place might not in another. The Yup'ik people in alaska are required to use the same education system that the rest of america uses. They have to pass the same tests to get federal funding. But many Yup'ik villages still speak their native language primarily. So how can they possibly be expected to pass a reading comprehension test? Therefore, they lose federal funding and their education system degrades even more. Additionally, some native children used to be put into special ed classes because they failed intelligence tests. These tests consisted of recognizing trees, schoolbuses, stop signs and the like. Sounds simple, until you realize these kids live on an island with no trees or roads.
Under your system, wouldn't these people face the same problems simply because they live in a different geographic and social climate?
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

The workers produce all the products, Bill Gates does none of that labor. He is only responsible for the idea of it. The production process is entirely up to the workers, which Gates and other CEOs exploit.

But does that mean he deserves 60 billion dollars?

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Also, the top 3 richest people own more wealth than the poorest 10% (600,000,000) people.

Does that even seem remotely plausible?

Hectichermit
offline
Hectichermit
1,828 posts
Bard

Eh The key in any economy is technology, without it no progress is made, Scarcity is one of those things you cannot solve in any system, there will always be those with and those without...and simply a few can have more while its usually the cost of the many...if you want to share everything equally you lose competition then you lose innovation...also they last no technological steps happend a while ago when the last of the major continents were found and humans realized that the world is a bit smaller...where do we go from there space and interplanetary resource production?...i was watching that there is a moon around Jupiter I think that its oceans are liquid methane...and its about the size of the Earth...so there are resources its just right now we are stuck to the planet...

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

It depends how you put that technology into use.

The problem isn't scarcity, its rather the massive inequality in the spread of the wealth.

Innovation comes from creative minds of the individual not competition. Say, who was Albert Einstein competing with? The same applies just to about every scientific progress.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

The workers produce all the products, Bill Gates does none of that labor. He is only responsible for the idea of it. The production process is entirely up to the workers, which Gates and other CEOs exploit.
But does that mean he deserves 60 billion dollars?


He still has to manage his business. Bill Gates started from the ground to get to were he is, so it's not like he inherited his wealth. I believe that when you create a company, you should be rewarded with the profits that the company makes. Microsoft is a multi billion dollar business.

Bill Gates will always make money off microsoft. Like it or not, so will his children and grand children. However, I doubt his children will inherit his business, but I could be wrong. His children will, however, make money off everything that he had copyrighted. This is generally fair, but copyright laws have gone out of hand.

Originally, copyright laws were implemented so that when someone has a new idea, they can make money off of it rather than someone else stealing that idea. Today, copyright laws last for a long time and they can be renewed.

Rather than hate Bill Gates for making so much money, it would make more sense to hate him for hording it all to himself. However, I would still rather give the man supplying us with computers my money than a man who takes my money "just in case" i get into a car accident, then raise my rates when I do.

Innovation comes from creative minds of the individual not competition. Say, who was Albert Einstein competing with? The same applies just to about every scientific progress.


American cars used to guzzle a bunch of gas. The reason why American cars get such great gas mileage is because everyone started buying imported cars. If you look at Microsoft and Apple, every time one company comes out with something, the other company comes out with the same product with even more features. Video games are very competative as well.

I don't know who competed with Einstein specifically, but mathmaticians and scientists are very competative. In fact, competition led to weapons such as the atomic bomb, which you can't say that competition only exists when it comes to weapons, it exists everywhere.

Alexander the Great was a great conqueror, not simply because he wanted to take over the world, but because he hated his father. His father was a succesful conqueror, and Alexander wanted to prove that he was better than him.

John Nash came up with game theory and won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He didn't earn such award simply because he was innovative, but because he was competative. He was competing with every other mathmatician, and it was his goal to obtain such an award.

Innovation comes from creative minds of people, but competition drives those people to actually work. Sometimes competition drives people to create things they never even thought of creating.

What one person does well, another will always try to do better. Einstein's ideas set a new height to mathmatics. Mathmaticians every day are trying to reach even higher.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Oh definitely. I love Gnome Chumsky.


He really is a don.

And as a Marxist, I think capitalism is a hierarchical system that is not too different from previous economic models. The only thing that has changed is the power structure, but it still contains two greatly opposing classes.


Social mobility has increased from Feudalism, but not to the point where I'd consider capitalism, in its current form at least, meritocratic.

I am not sure if I understand your proposed solution. What do you believe is the negative factor of capitalism that causes inequality, and how does your envisioned society change this?


I'd say inheritance and the education system are the primary causes of inequality in first world countries. A complete lack of any respectable workers rights in third world countries is the primary cause of inequality there.

Also, did I not mention 100% inheritance tax would be a key part of my theory? I meant to.

Combining the 100% inheritance tax with a properly meritocratic education system should, in my view, solve most of the problems associated with capitalism in the Western world. The establishment of a universal minimum wage would prevent TNCs exploiting workers in third world countries, and would be a big step towards reducing inequality there.

The only problem with this is that there's nothing that could stop the government from running the system.


A bigger government could take everything they own away, making those people servants to the state if they want to live well at all.


Big government doesn't equal bad. If your view of human nature is that humans are fundmanetally self seeking, my system is just a fairer way of chanelling that egoism. Also, may I point out that the executive in most countries, big government or not, is immensely powerful, and is no less susceptible to corruption than the system I propose, if not more so.

For a third world nation where the people already have a lack of power, I can see this as a possible solution. However, it wouldn't stop the government by any means from being truly corrupt if they wanted to.


The implementation of a universal minimum wage would not cause governments in thrid world countries to become bigger. Giving workers more rights is not an extension of government power. It's taking away responsibility from the government and giving rights to the people. I'd also like to point out that many governments of third world nations are already horribly corrupt, in part due to the massive privatisation which has occured.

How would your education system recognize people who are geniuses in fields that aren't created yet?


Geniuses are geniuses regardless of the education system. In an environment where they are stratified and would be given better standards of education, this would not be a hindrance, but an encouragement.

What about people who can succeed despite a lack of formal schooling, like H.G. Wells or Andrew Jackson?


If they succeed due to a lack of formal schooling under one system, why would it be any different under the proposed education system? That's like saying people without training who are good athletes will be worse athletes if the rules of the athletic club are changed. This is clearly unsound.

The problem with standardized education is that people aren't all the same.


Seeing as the proposed system tailors more to the needs of individuals and stratifies them depending on their skills, I don't really see how you can claim this would be a problem under the new system.

Eh The key in any economy is technology, without it no progress is made,


Essentially you're talking about a watered down version of creative destruction. I agree. The current system with entrenched monopolies is far from conducive to the creation of new technologies. Where everyone starts from scratch and has to attain, the incentive would be much higher, and more innovation would occur.

Scarcity is one of those things you cannot solve in any system, there will always be those with and those without...and simply a few can have more while its usually the cost of the many...


My system is not aiming to remove scarcity, or remove income or wealth differentials, rather create an environment where people actually earn their money fairly, and where everyone has a chance to do so.

What one person does well, another will always try to do better. Einstein's ideas set a new height to mathmatics. Mathmaticians every day are trying to reach even higher.


To this, I say that the primary goal of most scientists are certainly not egocentric. Scientific discoveries are not made because people want to compete with other scientists, they are made to fix problems we experience, and for the betterment of all in society. Geniuses don't pursue their life's work because they want to make sure they, and not the scientist in the lab opposite is remebered in posterity.
skater_kid_who_pwns
offline
skater_kid_who_pwns
4,375 posts
Blacksmith

In your graphs, it is rather unfair to include the entire world in that yes? We are focusing on the american system of goverment, and wealth distrobution.

(please correct me if I'm wrong)

But Isn't that graph of the entire worlds wealth? If so, it is no supprise to me that 1/3 of the world has 3$ a day, they live in places where food, water, and civillization are impossible to come by. While yes, people are starving there, well if they would stop having kids, when they can't eat them selfs, this problem would cease to exist.

This goes back to Darwinism. The idea that we should do nothing to intervin in the lifes of others. It's like nature, survival of the fitest.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

To this, I say that the primary goal of most scientists are certainly not egocentric. Scientific discoveries are not made because people want to compete with other scientists, they are made to fix problems we experience, and for the betterment of all in society.


True, not every scientific discovery is due to ocompetition, however scientists do compete all the time.

Big government doesn't equal bad. If your view of human nature is that humans are fundmanetally self seeking, my system is just a fairer way of chanelling that egoism.


I honestly don't think the government should be allowed to tell us how we spend out money. Big governments are those taht have a lot of power of their people, small governments have less power of their people. Even though any government can be evil, it's easier for people to revolt against smaller governments.

Let's face it, if the government decided to take away all of people's inheritance, I would have no problem going to war against my own nation and my own government. I have the feeling many people would say the same thing.

I don't trust the government enough as it is, why would I want them to control my life even more? Why should I start a business? A total stranger will probably inherit it, it's not like I could pick someone who could be responsible. I don't want the government to pick for me!

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

-Thomas Jefferson


I believe you should read Brave New World whenever you get the chance.
Hectichermit
offline
Hectichermit
1,828 posts
Bard

Bill Gates started from the ground to get to were he is, so it's not like he inherited his wealth


Actually I saw a documentary on Microsoft/Billgates his mother was a CEO of some company and gave hime like $20,000 to start up Microsoft, he also went to Harvard...very expensive you either have to be millionaires or get alot of scholarships...
Showing 16-30 of 54