What Is Economic Fairness?

Why would anyone make an economic exchange that was zero sum?

 

It isn't exchange, it is conflict. You can't understand economic outcome without reference to both. Ultimately the latter describes a heap of market failures.

 

Why do people need basic income? Why can't they support themselves? Maybe because they have to pay landowners and other greedy, privileged parasites full market value just for PERMISSION to do so? Even for permission just to exist in a space on the earth's solid surface? Maybe if people's rights had not been stripped from them by force and given to the privileged as their private property, they wouldn't need basic income to survive.

 

so according to libcommie theory if a hungry man buys bread it is a..... conflict rather than a joyous life saving Republican capitalist exchange? See why we say that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

they can!! the % who can support themselves is growing and growing. The earth now supports far more people at a far higher standard of living than ever before. In America far more poor die from eating too much than from eating too little.

 

Why do you think neoclassical economics is 'libcommie theory'? Weird!

 

only libcommie would find see a conflict in a hungry man buying bread. You would be thrown out of court in 2 seconds for doing everything possible to avoid debates you know you will lost. Who could be less persuasive than you?

 

Again, I've only referred to neoclassical economics. Why do you find modern economics 'radical left'? Its a particularly weird attitude!

 

so?? subject was a hungry man buying food. You are afraid to talk about it as usual. Do you want to tell us again how Apple is one of your evil corporations? You know if you are direct and specific you are doomed.

 

Answer the question: Why do you find modern economics 'radical left'?

 

Your critique would suggest basic income must be considered for policy against impeliasm rather than capitalism or monopolism. Who understands such philosophical structure over current economic system?

 

Oh, it is the important issue. People do not support themselves with the system of basic income. Technology itself will support ourselves with the improved life in the future. What's matter?

 

THE OVERT COLLUSION OF COMPETITION IN AMERICA

Impeliasm?

You are confounding you "isms", which is why you can't make sense of them.

Imperialism means one supreme governor (monarch, president, PM, etc.) who rules forever.

Capitalism is merely the use of money as a medium of exchange. Those who rail against Capitalism perhaps would prefer to return to its predecessor "Barter". I don't think so - no, not even progressives are promoting that nonsense to cure what is wrong with world.

Monopolism does not exist on the state level, and as regards economic policy (in real terms today) has been replaced by "oligopolism" - which is the control of major economic sectors by a limited number of players who never ever collude personally/directly with one another but dominate a market (because they have bought out all real competition) and settle into a market-sharing at higher prices than a really competitive market would obtain.

Which is perfectly fair as regards present laws governing Market Competition - and does not really exist. Meaning what kind exactly?

Here are some pertinent examples (from here):

Those who think that America is a fully competitive marketplace are simply fooling themselves. The rush to aggregation of markets (aka "buyouts") has resulted in market consolidation where real-competition simply no longer exists.(And a series of US governments - including that of Obama - simply sat by and watched. Why? Because guess where the major part of electoral funding was coming from?!?)

For as long as we, the sheeple, do not elect a PotUS who promises to bring "real competition" by breaking up the most prevalent "market trusts", then the cost-of-living will be determined by imperfect market-competition in some key American industries.

 

Monopolism does exist on a state level.
As libertarians put it. The state has the monopoly on violence.

But typically it has the monopoly on many other things too. Healthcare. Roads. Welfare. and indeed holds sway over vast percentages of the economy that no other single group of people would be legally allowed to under monopoly laws.

Can you imagine a private company being allowed to control 40% of the economy?
It wouldn't be.
It wouldn't be allowed anywhere close to this.

 

THE NECESSITY OF UPPER-INCOME LIMITS

I would also like to reply to the question of oligopolies that plague America by insisting on the original fact of "what engenders oligopolies"? It's really quite simple.

Corporate pay is determined by aggregate turnover of a company (presuming it has reasonable debt). The more the turnover of a company, the more Corporate Management can exact outrageous pay and stock-options.

It's as simple as that? So, what is the remedy?!?

A 98% upper-income taxation barrier on the amount that any one individual can earn. I'd put that limit at 2/3 megabucks a year beyond which the 98% would apply.

Which means more than enough money to parade around AnyTown, USA in a Rolls, whilst the family vacations regularly at their other homes in Gstadt, or on the Riviera, or Canouan in the Caribbean.

THE WORLD DOES NOT NEED BILLIONAIRES ... !

 

Not turn over, no.

Profit.

A company that operates at a loss, the more it turns over the more it loses. The less it's boss and any shareholders get paid.
A stock option on a company with declining stock value is an opportunity to lose money not gain it.

Stock options, on the other hand also give an employee the opportunity to buy into a company that they expect to improve in value due to their own labours.
It's a sensible incentive for increased productivity.

 

The value of anything tends to depend on what it is for - so a knife may be judged on whether it is sharp, cuts well or whatever. What are people for? Until you can answer that, from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need. 'Fairness' is one of these fantasies, like the 'freedom' to murder others.

 

The Poor™ wouldn't know what to do with Wealth.

 

More inane sarcasm. That's all you got for rebuttal.

You go on Ignore ...

 

INCOME TAXATION GONE AWRY

Oh yeah, so let's see how you apply your "knife analogy" to human beings. If an individual is personally not sharp enough to "cut", the economy gets a better knife that will? Yes, well that is exactly what is happening to Industry in America as it becomes automated!

We are all members of a market-economy. Like it or not.

Within our market-economy is an important duality. That is, we are both Consumers and (through our work) Suppliers of products/services for our Consumption. That is the prime-nomenclature that economists apply to those living in a market-economy. Even given our unique duality (Consumers and workers for Suppliers) of being on both sides of what is not really a "dividing line". It's just nomenclature.

Above the economy, however, is another nomenclature called "governance". Which is a body we elect that makes and enforces laws that affect our existence on either side of the economic nomenclature.

In many democracies, there is a prevailing influence as regards "governance" that falls into the category of Left-Center-Right, typically shifting amongst all three. No need for a definition there.

But, just a remark. The nature at any give time about "economic nomenclature" depends upon "types of governance" that interpret the law that governments enforce. Aside from the hideous crime of taking-life, there is a vast subjective region of interpretation when it comes to "interpreting the application of law". (Meaning that laws can exist, but governments can select whichever ones they find necessary (typically due to campaign promises) to apply - and leave the rest in a dark-corner.)

Which is what has happened with Donald Dork - an error doubly important because he was elected PotUS without the majority of the democratic popular-vote. (Please note the difference between the words Democratic and democratic - it's important!)

And whyzat?
*Because at the very beginning of the nation, those who concocted the Constitution were perhaps less concerned with "liberty and fairness" - and more fixated technically about "who controls the presidency". And this in a country where most of the voting occurs in the populous north where all the "new citizens" were pouring in.
*More important was, however, the nature of the work-force. From here: The Economics of the Civil War - excerpt:

Once again, a difference of political opinion is reduced to a single consideration: The cost/value of a production input factor that occured at a crucial time of economic transformation in America from the Agricultural to the Industrial Age.

The present tragedy of American history lies in the fact that if slavery is hideously unfair and therefore unacceptable, then - in a nation where slave-wages are now confined to incomes below the Poverty Threshold ($24K for a family of four) - so also repulsive (at the other end of the income spectrum) is overwhelming unfairness in Net Personal Wealth resulting from an economic-system where income-earned has gone awry - as seen below:



The question of "fairness" thus devolves to one: Should incomes not be capped by means of taxed-confiscation above a certain level?

 

And you are like most one-liner respondents on this forum. You think everything can be summarized by employing sarcasm.

What a crass-act you are ... !

 

Two liner to attack one liner? There's some hard core attitude!

An earned mug derives more well-being than an unearned one, at least according to psychological experiments. The workers must be skipping through the meadow compared to those poor fellows living in filthy unearned riches.

 

Wealth sharing.

From right to left.

 

Then it's a band-aid solution, and won't work. The privileged, especially landowners, will just take it all.