Can Capitalism Be Improved?

[Harshaw]

I do not know why you found the need to insult by saying "ridiculous" standards but since you did, would you be so kind to explain why you see them as ridiculous?

It's not an insult to say your standard is ridiculous. It's a critique of your position.

If you think that there are no meaningful regulations, then your standards for what constitutes one are ridiculous.

Unless you think that Buffett is a liar, it is true. He personally said it and I saw the tape several times of him saying so. In fact, he said there were 15 out of 18 of his office workers that cooperated with an internal survey and it was found out that all 15 of them paid lower taxes percentage-wise that Buffett.

I know he said it. I doubt him, yes.

In the same statement, he said he doesn't do anything in particular to lower his tax burden (seeking shelters, deferments, breaks, etc.), and I just plain straight-up don't believe that, so yeah, I'm saying he's lying.

As far as Capitalism is concerned, this whole thread is about controlling Capitalism and certainly allowing the wealthy to make more money percentage-wise than the normal worker does not do anything for controlling Capitalism. Additional taxes on the wealthy will have some effect given that every time they make more more they will have to pay more in taxes. At some point, paying taxes on making more money than can be spent in a lifetime should control the desire to make more, given that they are not accomplishing any new benefits but are having to pay more and do more paperwork.

Well, as I said above, limits on capitalism which are based on the idea that someone makes too much money relative to someone else are inappropriate.

 

[Harshaw]

What about leaving child labor free? Let the market decide if children can't work.

That's not really a product of capitalism, and there are many things which are not appropriate for minors.

We can try not to get into the ridiculous, right? Like, say, slavery?

And get rid of minimum wage laws too.

There's a strong economic argument for that. Nonetheless, minimum wage laws do exist, so my understanding of the thread is what else do we want on top of what we already have?

After all, we have tried that already. When the market WAS completely free in the late 19th century, you had young children working 80 hour weeks, with dangerous equipment and chemicals, with still barely enough to eat. The factory owners, on the other hand, could work 2-3 days a week, and were making more than the entire GDP of some nations. Left alone, the problem was only getting worse not better. Is it OK to introduce distortions to try to regulate such trends?

I think you're not understand what I meant by distortion. Monopolies, my example, distort the free market. The things you're describing here are similar.

But as I said, rehashing past arguments don't really matter; the question is about where we go from here. At least that's how I understand the thread.

 

[ataraxia]

RE: Warren Buffett paying lower taxes than his secretary

I know he said it. I doubt him, yes.

What is there to doubt? Capital gains taxes are much lower than income taxes.

 

[Xelor]

Can Capitalism Be Improved?

Capitalism doesn't need improvement; it needs management.

 

[Harshaw]

There is nothing inherent in the free market that says that an economy in a recession should recover any time soon. It could take decades.

It could. But in 2008, it would have recovered without help.

But a quicker recovery doesn't necessarily mean it's a BETTER recovery. Nor does quickness imply that it must be done.

Actually there is no question among economists that Keynesian stimulus spending helps economies recover more quickly from a recession. The only point of controversy is whether it's worth the ensuing deficits. It is if, after the recovery, you raise the taxes to pay off the deficits.

It doesn't mean a stimulus HAS to be done. There's an argument to be made that a natural recovery is better than a soft landing, because weak links are eliminated that a soft landing would preserve, which only leads more quickly to the next recession because of it.

 

[Harshaw]

How about that if corporations can get treated like people when it comes to campaign contributions, they also get treated like people for getting taxed?

Fine with me. :shrug:

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Well, that's just plain appropriate rule of law. A bit broad to be useful in this particular convo, though. Did you have something more specific in mind?

Apply the rule of law to all persons/entities without exemption and I'm fine.

 

[Harshaw]

RE: Warren Buffett paying lower taxes than his secretary

What is there to doubt? Capital gains taxes are much lower than income taxes.

Someone ran the numbers and figured out that his secretary would have to be making good six figures for it to be true, given the marginal rates and applicable deductions, which seemed quite unlikely, and I believe he gave a number for her salary much lower than that. That was a long time ago, though, and I really don't feel like going to hunt for it.

 

[Harshaw]

Apply the rule of law to all persons/entities without exemption and I'm fine.

OK. But like I said, that seems a little too broad to be helpful to this convo.

 

[ataraxia]

That's not really a product of capitalism, and there are many things which are not appropriate for minors.

Who's to say? If it's not appropriate, then they or their parents shouldn't be taking those jobs. Why try to get the government to regulate it? I may say it's not appropriate for someone to work full time and not be able to have enough to eat. Many liberterians will disagree. If you believe in the free markets, you don't try to regulate based on your personal values and sense of morality. You just let the free market decide.

There's a strong economic argument for that. Nonetheless, minimum wage laws do exist, so my understanding of the thread is what else do we want on top of what we already have?

No, the understanding of the thread is wondering whether it's OK to tinker with the free markets, or is it best just to always leave it alone. We may decide to get rid of some regulations here and there, or add others here and there. It's about whether it's OK for a society to try to customize and design capitalism to minimize the pain and mitigate the worst effects of capitalism, while getting its benefits to continue to benefit the most number of people in its society, including its workers, which form the vast majority of any society by far. Or should that freedom of society to play with the free market be restricted by the faith that the free market always knows best?

I think you're not understand what I meant by distortion. Monopolies, my example, distort the free market. The things you're describing here are similar.

But as I said, rehashing past arguments don't really matter; the question is about where we go from here. At least that's how I understand the thread.

How we understand and interpret the past has huge implications for how we think we should go from here. For example, we may look at the fall of Soviet communism and interpret that to mean that all social programs and regulations on the free market should be gotten rid of altogether. It sounds like you disagree with that sentiment. Why? How do YOU interpret that past and what do YOU think it should mean for us going forward as far as having the freedom as a society to try to customize and put some safety nets and regulations on capitalism?

 

[ataraxia]

Someone ran the numbers and figured out that his secretary would have to be making good six figures for it to be true, given the marginal rates and applicable deductions, which seemed quite unlikely, and I believe he gave a number for her salary much lower than that. That was a long time ago, though, and I really don't feel like going to hunt for it.

So then what are your thoughts on the opinions of Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, on progressive taxation?

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
-Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

 

[Bullseye]

All I can opine on is that uncontrolled greed is bad, meaning that some controls on Capitalism should be imposed. The only way that I can think of is through some form of increased taxes as the wealth increases. I do know that Elizabeth Warren is proposing a wealth tax on the super rich. This has been tried before in other countries with limited success so something like that but tweaked might work.

Great idea - punishing success is a sure way to ensure continuing prosperity. Uncontrolled jealousy is far more dangerous than "uncontrolled greed.

There is a point where Capitalism goes to an extreme and it is there where controls have to be placed. I have no suggestions at this time but I am sure there is a way that will work. Certainly there is clearly a point where enough money has been made to last a lifetime and the lifetimes of all family members and at that point the next of kin, which is the American public, should start getting some of the benefits of that person's ability to make money.

Why not just work to give the people the skills and opportunity to MAKE THEIR OWN money instead of stealing from others?

 

[ataraxia]

It could. But in 2008, it would have recovered without help.

But a quicker recovery doesn't necessarily mean it's a BETTER recovery. Nor does quickness imply that it must be done.

It does if you're the one whose family is getting evicted and might end up on the street.

It doesn't mean a stimulus HAS to be done. There's an argument to be made that a natural recovery is better than a soft landing, because weak links are eliminated that a soft landing would preserve, which only leads more quickly to the next recession because of it.

I don't think you understand the sheer level of pain and desperation these recessions have on the vast majority of people. It sounds like you're a little out of touch with the average person: losing their jobs, their businesses, getting themselves, and their entire family including young children out into the street, with no health insurance, etc.... It really puts people in desperate situations which no human being should have to face. To watch that level of pain, for months, even years, knowing you can do something about it, and not doing something, would in my mind be unconscionable. It's like watching a forest fire destroy entire cities and towns, not doing anything about it, and just shrugging it off as perfectly natural and for the best.

 

[ataraxia]

Why not just work to give the people the skills and opportunity to MAKE THEIR OWN money instead of stealing from others?

So you're OK with free college and vocational school training?

 

[Rich2018]

The video in the OP makes no sense.

Capitalism can't be improved.

If you introduce laws and regulations you're not improving capitalism. Capitalism is what it is. Wealth generation.


The problem with capitalism and the free market is that people place a value on things that can't be measured.

The most profitable use for Central Park in NYC is to build office buildings and high rise apartment blocks on it. People object to this on grounds other than financial or economics.

 

[Harshaw]

Who's to say? If it's not appropriate, then they or their parents shouldn't be taking those jobs. Why try to get the government to regulate it? I may say it's not appropriate for someone to work full time and not be able to have enough to eat. Many liberterians will disagree. If you believe in the free markets, you don't try to regulate based on your personal values and sense of morality. You just let the free market decide.

There are many things that minors are not permitted to do, and rights that they don't fully possess, because they are minors.

I'm not really interested in reductio ad absurdum here. Besides, the question goes well beyond that of mere capitalism.

No, the understanding of the thread is wondering whether it's OK to tinker with the free markets, or is it best just to always leave it alone. We may decide to get rid of some regulations here and there, or add others here and there. It's about whether it's OK for a society to try to customize and design capitalism to minimize the pain and mitigate the worst effects of capitalism, while getting its benefits to continue to benefit the most number of people in its society, including its workers, which form the vast majority of any society by far. Or should that freedom of society to play with the free market be restricted by the faith that the free market always knows best?

You are pretty much describing a choice between complete anarchy and complete authority. That's not what we have, and it's not a very useful conversation.

I've given you some parameters I go by. What are yours?

How we understand and interpret the past has huge implications for how we think we should go from here. For example, we may look at the fall of Soviet communism and interpret that to mean that all social programs and regulations on the free market should be gotten rid of altogether. It sounds like you disagree with that sentiment. Why? How do YOU interpret that past and what do YOU think it should mean for us going forward as far as having the freedom as a society to try to customize and put some safety nets and regulations on capitalism?

I've already done it. I gave an example of a distortion which was rightly addressed through regulation, and explained why I thought so.

 

[Bullseye]

So you're OK with free college and vocational school training?

Nope. Not Globally. Free stuff is generally not worth the price. I started my career at a community college in Sacramento, Ca. It was not free, but the cost was easily manageable by working full time with enough left over for rent, car, etc..

 

[Harshaw]

It does if you're the one whose family is getting evicted and might end up on the street.

When it comes to discussing macroeconomic systems, the anecdotal problems of any individual aren't really a concern. It's the system as a whole which is relevant.

I don't think you understand the sheer level of pain and desperation these recessions have on the vast majority of people. It sounds like you're a little out of touch with the average person: losing their jobs, their businesses, getting themselves, and their entire family including young children out into the street, with no health insurance, etc.... It really puts people in desperate situations which no human being should have to face. To watch that level of pain, for months, even years, knowing you can do something about it, and not doing something, would in my mind be unconscionable. It's like watching a forest fire destroy entire cities and towns, not doing anything about it, and just shrugging it off as perfectly natural and for the best.

See above. And I'm quite well aware of the plight of individual people, including myself, during recessions.

 

[Harshaw]

So then what are your thoughts on the opinions of Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, on progressive taxation?

My thought is that it's a false argument to authority.

 

[ataraxia]

When it comes to discussing macroeconomic systems, the anecdotal problems of any individual aren't really a concern. It's the system as a whole which is relevant.

It becomes relevant when those individuals number in the tens of millions. That's a system.

See above. And I'm quite well aware of the plight of individual people, including myself, during recessions.

I would say it's as immoral and heartless to let such large number of people suffer to such a degree without trying to mitigate or shorten it, as it is to exploit child labor.

I guess it comes down to: is it Ok to use our sense of morality to try to regulate the worst excesses of the blind free market?

IOW, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" may be blind too. Left completely unchecked, it can really slap some people very hard while it's doing its thing. Is it OK to intervene and guide that hand a little sometimes so it doesn't hit quite so many people quite so hard?

 

[ataraxia]

My thought is that it's a false argument to authority.

It's seems to me to be the same argument to authority as the laws restricting child labor. It's just a "this is inappropriate so we should do something about it, because the market left completely free certainly isn't going to do it by itself.".

 

[ataraxia]

Nope. Not Globally.

Who said anything about "globally"? I would think most modern economies try to protect just things that are considered basic "human rights", as generally outlined in the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948: the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare. We are not talking about a BMW for every driveway.

One of the motivations behind such a declaration was that when people are left to face desperate situations in which even such basic things are not protected, no matter how hard the times they have hit, it creates socially and politically unstable societies. So it's more than just about humanitarian considerations, if such things don't resonate.

 

[marke]

All I can opine on is that uncontrolled greed is bad, meaning that some controls on Capitalism should be imposed. The only way that I can think of is through some form of increased taxes as the wealth increases. I do know that Elizabeth Warren is proposing a wealth tax on the super rich. This has been tried before in other countries with limited success so something like that but tweaked might work.

There is a point where Capitalism goes to an extreme and it is there where controls have to be placed. I have no suggestions at this time but I am sure there is a way that will work. Certainly there is clearly a point where enough money has been made to last a lifetime and the lifetimes of all family members and at that point the next of kin, which is the American public, should start getting some of the benefits of that person's ability to make money.

I think the unreasonably unfair high taxation of the rich will do little or nothing to slow the problematic greed of poor people wanting the rich to be forced to share their wealth with them.

 

[Harshaw]

It becomes relevant when those individuals number in the tens of millions. That's a system.

No, individuals are not a system.

I would say it's as immoral and heartless to let such large number of people suffer to such a degree without trying to mitigate or shorten it, as it is to exploit child labor.

I guess it comes down to: is it Ok to use our sense of morality to try to regulate the worst excesses of the blind free market? [/quote]

There is more than one way to look at it, morally.

If alleviating short-term pain leads to worse pain down the road, is it really "moral"?

Never mind the whole idea of liberty.

IOW, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" may be blind too. Left completely unchecked, it can really slap some people very hard while it's doing its thing. Is it OK to intervene and guide that hand a little sometimes so it doesn't hit quite so many people quite so hard?

OK. What are your parameters?

 

[Harshaw]

It's seems to me to be the same argument to authority as the laws restricting child labor. It's just a "this is inappropriate so we should do something about it, because the market left completely free certainly isn't going to do it by itself.".

That's not an argument to authority.