The problem of Capitalism

[Dacke]

Try living in the US on an income of $25K a year (the Poverty Threshold) and you'll find out ...

You didn't answer my question - Why is it that you think income disparity is a bad thing?

 

[Lafayette]

You didn't answer my question - Why is it that you think income disparity is a bad thing?

Income disparity is phrase that means "unfairness".

People like you think that economy is a football game and anyone with the most number of points DESERVES to win it. Well I don't!

Yes, incomes cannot all be the same. Communism proved the myth of that rule.

But, neither does a nation need an economy that generates fortunes and looks like this:

 

[Lafayette]

You didn't answer my question - Why is it that you think income disparity is a bad thing?

Because this happens:

Do you think that is a Fair Distribution of income?

I don't, and most economists do not either!

PS: Please note that you are in an "Economics Forum"

 

[Dacke]

Income disparity is phrase that means "unfairness".

What does this even mean?

People like you think that economy is a football game and anyone with the most number of points DESERVES to win it. Well I don't!

No, not at all. "People like me" do not regard the free market as a zero sum game; "people like me" view the free market as a place where everyone is a winner. When a homeless person gathers enough change to afford a Cheeseburger from McDonald's; both him and McDonald's are winners as they both have exchanged value for value.

Yes, incomes cannot all be the same. Communism proved the myth of that rule.

But, neither does a nation need an economy that generates fortunes and looks like this:

I agree "nations" (governments) should not generate fortunes. People should.

 

[Dacke]

Because this happens:

Do you think that is a Fair Distribution of income?

I do not even know what "fair distribuion of income" is supposed to mean. Different individuals make different career and investment choices and they thus generate different amounts of income. This is not unfair at all.

I don't, and most economists do not either!

And what exactly is it that stops you from demanding a salary on level with those of the bottom at society? If all of these "good-hearted economists" that you are mentioning could show some principles and demand the salary of a McDonald's wprker, that graph would be, at least, a bit more evened out.

PS: Please note that you are in an "Economics Forum"

You don't say.

 

[Lafayette]

I do not even know what "fair distribuion of income" is supposed to mean.

Frankly that would make a damn fine thread.

What it means is that the US gets its finger out and institutes near 100% taxation on earnings above 5/10 megabucks, and requires 100% Inheritance Taxation of all sums above 1 megabuck.

Drastic, right? But that is the way it must be.

Meaning that everybody should "earn money" according to their luck/efforts. But nobody should earn Net Income of 100, 1000 or 10,000 times the country's Net Income need.

For the moment, we are a people who ask men and women to risk their lives to "defend the nation" (despite the fact that nobody is attacking it), and (if they survive) Uncle Sam will finance their postsecondary education. (BFD!)

That postsecondary education is becoming the minimum-requirement towards earning a decent living-wage as the US exits the Industrial Age and enters the Information Age ... !

*The US is Number 1! Yes, number 1! The country has the highest percentage of its population in prisons! Don't wanna believe that? Then, see here: Countries with the most imprisoned as a percentage of the population. And almost 60% of inmates have no secondary-schooling degree!
*Don't want to believe that? Then see for yourself the breakdown of educational level in American prisons. Scroll down to the second chart.

 

[Dacke]

Frankly that would make a damn fine thread.

What it means is that the US gets its finger out and institutes near 100% taxation on earnings above 5/10 megabucks, and requires 100% Inheritance Taxation of all sums above 1 megabuck.

Drastic, right? But that is the way it must be.

Being an economist, I am sure you are familiar with the Laffer curve, yes? Tax revenues actually increase when taxes are cut because people are incentivised to work harder and your solution would actually result in even greater misery and probably even larger disparities.

Meaning that everybody should "earn money" according to their luck/efforts. But nobody should earn Net Income of 100, 1000 or 10,000 times the country's Net Income need.

Those people pay more taxes than the "bottom 99%" do combined.

 

[Lafayette]

I agree "nations" (governments) should not generate fortunes. People should.

Nations by means of their taxation system allow fortunes to exist. Which are of no use whatsoever except to inheritors and Wall Street Investment Banks.

Duhhhhh ...

 

[bomberfox]

Capitalism is based on the theory of evolution and works by the same basic principles as natural selection. Socialism is based on artificial selection, which is why is tends to implode after a period of time.

For example, Apple came up with the iPad a decade ago. This, in terms of a parallel to the theory of evolution, is a genetic mutation or a natural change into a new life form. This mutation represented change; new critter, but that along did not mean it will automatically succeed. It still has to compete, to see if it has selective advantages and be subject to natural selection; high consumer demand. Only then will it persist.

If it does, which it did, it begins to breed and spread; supply increases. Like life, it can never rest on its laurels, but has to constantly evolve, improve and adapt, to maintain its place in the eco-system. Capitalism is organic, while organic is not always pretty. The lion will kill the gazelle, which gets messy, but this assures the lion's and gazelle species survival. Other similar competitors will also try to move in on the territory. This brings out the best in all, and efficiency improves even further, to meet the challenges of our rival; Eye of Tiger.

Socialism is more based on artificial selection. In this system, bureaucrats decide which cattle it wishes to breed. It does not wish to let nature run its course in free market. This artificial choice may not based on natural potential such as fitness and utility. It can be based on cosmetic reasons, or even career and monetary payoffs. This choice is also due to layman bureaucrats and politicians making decision even about complex specialty areas beyond there skills. What do lawyers know about heath care? Why would one expect them to pick natural selection winners?

In natural selection, it is the experts; mutations/inventors, who drive the innovation. They help make the choices. Apple depends on its inventors, innovators and marketing people to assure mutations have fitness in the jungle, before the mutations appear in numbers to compete. You can't go wrong if you use nature as a template, since this has worked for a billion years.

The problem the left has it prefers artificial selection, based on appeasing insecurities. If people are afraid or insecure, the quick fix is what they want. However, natural future fitness is based on the ability to adapt to the unknown and not just the known. In the free market, they need to anticipate all types of potential future problems, from supply chain, to changing technology to new products. You approach can't be too fixed in time; quick fix fad, or else you will go extinct. This long term planning step always plagues Socialism since it does not think, as does nature.

Capitalism runs based off the institutions created to support it. The contract law and property law system holds up capitalism, among many other institutions. Also... artificial selection is how we got edible fruits and veggies so yes artificial selection works very well.

 

[James972]

Do you think that is a Fair Distribution of income?

It like asking if its fair that a certain group has a very high IQ and so can found tech companies, or fair that a certain group has musical or athletic ability or if fair the a few beautiful women make all the money in modeling.

What you really saying is you want a Nazi govt to violently make things fair through tax and welfare as they see fairness. France tried it,almost double our tax and they are rioting in the streets that they cant make ends meet.

 

[James972]

Do you think that is a Fair Distribution of income?

Its a free county. If people don't want Bezos to have so much money they are free not to buy from him!! LIbcommies want to steal from Bezos at gunpoint. Violence never works!! Violence is all liberals know.

 

[James972]

Capitalism runs based off the institutions created to support it. The contract law and property law system holds up capitalism, among many other institutions.

Capitalism and America run off natural law which includes private property. America works because it is most consistent with nature.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I answered no, because of this:

Capitalism is DEFINITELY the worst system.

Except for all the others.

:2wave:

 

[James972]

Nations by means of their taxation system allow fortunes to exist.

wrong, fortunes exist in a free society because geniuses have things to sell us that save and improve our lives. A fortune is their reward for service. We don't want to interfere with the guy who wants to serve us with a cure for cancer or heart disease and earn a huge reward. 1+1=2

 

[James972]

Capitalism is DEFINITELY the worst system.

worst? it just saved another 60 million from slowly starving to death in China. It just eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty when China switched to it. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

The US is Number 1! Yes, number 1! The country has the highest percentage of its population in prisons!

This is because liberals attacked and destroyed the American family, religion, and schools. They targeted blacks to the point where many think it is "white" to do well in school. And this happened while real education spending went up 4 times (according to Robert Samuelson in todays WP.) 1+1=2

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Its a free county. If people don't want Bezos to have so much money they are free not to buy from him!! LIbcommies want to steal from Bezos at gunpoint. Violence never works!! Violence is all liberals know.

So you want to steal from Bezos at gunpoint? Why?

 

[GreatNews2night]

worst? it just saved another 60 million from slowly starving to death in China. It just eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty when China switched to it. Do you understand?

I think you are the one who doesn't understand. You didn't get the humor? It's a famous quote. The worst... except for ALL THE OTHERS. That makes it the best, doesn't it?

I even said I voted NO to the poll question, to make it easier for you to understand what I was getting at. You still didn't understand. Wow!

 

[James972]

I think you are the one who doesn't understand. You didn't get the humor? It's a famous quote. The worst... except for ALL THE OTHERS. That makes it the best, doesn't it?

I even said I voted NO to the poll question, to make it easier for you to understand what I was getting at. You still didn't understand. Wow!

well, the best of the worst in faint praise

 

[GreatNews2night]

well, the best of the worst in faint praise

Again, it's humor... It's to create contrast. It's a punch line. It gives the impression that the person issuing the phrase will bash capitalism, and then it reverses it, and praises it. Get it?

I frankly find it quite incredible that you didn't get it, and then tried to berate me... LOL

And even if we were to take it literally, without the humor, it would still be true. Capitalism has its problems, warts and all... but if you look at other countries that did not embrace it and the disasters they brought upon themselves (there is another current example going on as we speak, Venezuela), you realize that capitalism is still, in the very least, the least bad system... therefore, the one that makes most sense, and the one that needs to be adopted.

 

[James972]

Again, it's humor...

fine, but keep in mind anything the tinyiest bit subtle will be 100 miles over a liberal's head.

 

[GreatNews2night]

fine, but keep in mind anything the tinyiest bit subtle will be 100 miles over a liberal's head.

I don't know what ideology you profess as you did choose to keep it undisclosed and I don't recall you from other discussions, but it did fly 110 miles over *your* head.

The quote is a paraphrase of a famous one. Winston Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

People then apply it to capitalism as well.

 

[marke]

Income disparity is phrase that means "unfairness".

People like you think that economy is a football game and anyone with the most number of points DESERVES to win it. Well I don't!

Yes, incomes cannot all be the same. Communism proved the myth of that rule.

But, neither does a nation need an economy that generates fortunes and looks like this:

You are aware that a nation which has produced a record number of billionaires has also improved the living standards of even its poorest citizens who, compared to citizens of nations like Haiti, live like kings?

 

[James972]

People then apply it to capitalism as well.

they do??? when it doesn't apply nearly s well??????


-Winston Churchill: dubbed Mussolini the world's greatest lawgiver (page 27)

 

[GreatNews2night]

they do??? when it doesn't apply nearly s well??????


-Winston Churchill: dubbed Mussolini the world's greatest lawgiver (page 27)

Yes, it applies perfectly.

Oh, great. :roll: So you find *one* quote by Churchill that wasn't that successful, and you wipe under the table the man's undeniable and widely recognized wisdom? What about all his other genius-level quotes?
And he didn't even talk about capitalism so what you think of his opinions should be irrelevant here.
I merely paraphrased him for the humor component.

Look, fellow, in your situation, I'd quit now. The more you speak, the worse you look.

You know what you should have said instead, when you misguidedly tried to berate me, and I set it straight? How about this:

"Oops, sorry, I didn't read your post carefully and misunderstood you; my bad."

To which I'd have said: "no worries, no big deal, carry on!"

Instead, you are trying to dodge the bullet, but you are only getting even more in the line of fire.