How does capitalism have a happy ending?

God's existence is currently unprovable and will remain so until there is enough repeatable observable scientific evidence to decisively indicate his existence or non-existence, like all other theoretical phenomena.

The most popular arguments about the existence of God are over divine intervention or some supernatural designer v.s. Darwinian evolution simply because there is a lot of new information to discuss and debate about. Darwinian evolutionary theory, and its accumulating evidence are just one basis for disbelief in God's existence, mostly because it provides a mass of evidence that disproves many of the assertions made by believers of observable evidence of God's existence.

However, the most popular positions for and against the existence of God are still philosophical and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

The existence of any scientific debate at all about the existence of God rests entirely on fanatical believers who have staked their faith on a few mistaken notions of God's work and desperately fight against all evidence uncovered by science to the contrary. It is a sad state of affairs because there are many scientists who are firm believers in God, who consider their work as the greatest service they can give to God because they believe that we can only understand what God wants from us by understanding what he has created for us.

 

Did you know that only truer forms of Socialism or Communism actually require a work ethic. Capitalism admits to Individual Liberty under our form of it, and laws regarding Employment At Will. If you aren't solving for structural forms of unemployment you merely let people "slip through the cracks".

We already have the legal and physical infrastructure in our republic to solve simple poverty; it merely and only requires a moral of "goodwill toward men" for free, to accomplish it, and specifically not a War on Poverty.

 

Capitalism by nature concentrates wealth in a minority of hands. The wages of the working class are not linked to the value of the work being produced; instead, they are linked to the minimalistic needs of survival and labor requirements of businesses. The owners of production are the sole beneficiaries of a capitalistic economy.

The argument of the right is unsound because it violates the pigeonhole principle. If they are w workers and j jobs and w > j, then at least one job must have w/j people demanding it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle

The arguments of the left and right are just where the minimalistic state of human beings should belong. The right believes it should be lower and the left a bit higher.

Business management mostly determines the impact of an increase to minimal wages. A balance sheet can be altered a number of different ways. Price increases, labor reduction, or a reduction to owners equity. The decision made here will be business specific. Public owned companies that do not have monopolies will likely absorb the change in owners equity. Businesses that have excess employment may reduce labor. And monopolies can always increase prices.

It doesn't have a happy ending. At the same time, society is not evolved enough to support ideas like socialism. In addition, there are distribution of power problems in a socialistic model that remains unsolved. Capitalism also has distribution of power problems, but its more hidden.

 

This is an idealistic theory that simply does not hold up when scrutinized. Corporations have seen consistent, even unprecedented growth in profits in recent decades, yet wages continue to stagnate and poverty continues to increase. Wages are not determined by supply and demand, although that's exactly what capitalists will have you believe.

 

I agree to some extent. Wages certainly aren't based solely on supply and demand. Some people are worth a lot more money than others, especially the ones that will stay at their job for more than a month. Why do you think these businesses have seen unprecedented growth? Is it because they moved a bunch of people off their payroll to poverty levels? Is it because they increased efficiency of their business through their leadership and investments in technology? Is it because they got high skilled workers that excel at their job? (Too big to fail banks don't count in any of this because they are backed by the government, not true corporations and they are their own entity). But increases in poverty has little to do with how corporations run their businesses. Corporations can't end poverty, nor can they increase it or decrease it. Poverty (from able workers) is brought upon by themselves in most cases, not by corporations.

 

Take something like the abundance of demand for low skilled labour. Purely demand orientated, making the standard supply blame games look a little desperate

 

There is a reason for that. Those low skilled workers work minimum hours or have huge turnover. (Turnover hurts corps bad) They don't work full time wanting to move up in the world. They accept these low paying jobs in order to keep their government benefits. This is what you don't get about running your stupid stats. The fact that they can have more kids, work less, and get their healthcare paid for doesn't even come into your thought process. It's a system that is entirely calculated and has been worked out almost to the penny. And it's real. You don't deal with these unfortunate that roll up in a new Tahoe with $150 new shoes coming from the emergency room for an ear infection and hand out free medication all paid for by someone else. This is reality. Stats don't tell you this stuff. Real life does.

 

Notice your continued use of 'they' (i.e. attempting to continue the low skilled equilibrium is a supply-side phenomenon).

Stats enable empirical testing of economic hypothesis. Those that use the 'its real life' claim are really just hiding from objective analysis. We saw the consequences with your error over the low skilled equilibrium. Rather than acknowledging the empirical reality, you've maintained an ideological based position to ignore the challenge to your stance

 

They means exactly what it means. "they" look it up in the dictionary. And "they" in my case is poor people. I was "they" growing up, so don't talk to me about it. I have college debt I'm paying off for 10 more years and I've been paying for 12 already. I notice your use of "we" (as in our academic type know better), you know numbers, and numbers are easily manipulated. What I do know is that enabling the poor does not make them better people or provide for better lives Making it possible to stay this way by government enablement does exactly that, keeps them poor.

 

It means you're playing the same ole supply-side blame games. You do realise supply side economics was proved to be complete bobbins don't you?

 

Not at all; poverty is Institutional on a for-profit basis and not due to Individuals. A simple proof is an Institutional denial and disparagement of Individual Liberty of labor, in favor of the wealthiest concerning our own laws regarding employment at will and unemployment compensation on that same basis.

 

When you subsidize poverty you get more of it. That's common sense. When you make poverty comfortable, you can't be surprised when people choose to stay poor.

 

Solving for simple poverty is not subsidizing it; it is merely correcting for a known market "failure" or market inefficiency.

 

"Solving" for poverty? You assume there was a problem that needed to be solved. Poverty was going down on its own every year before the massive anti-poverty programs of the 1960s (at least in the US). So poverty was the problem. The real problem was that government needs an excuse to redistribute wealth. It had to do this before poverty went away and the State lost that excuse.

Also, whenever people use the term "market failure," they inevitably mean that the market failed to achieve utopia instantaneously. These same people never hold the government to these same high standards, however. So even though the State's anti-poverty programs have failed miserably and actually made things worse, Mr. Daniel here will undoubtedly not say that they are a failure.

 

Clearly not consistent with international comparison. See, for example, US higher poverty and the higher social mobility encountered in countries with more generous welfare systems

 

Yes, there is a "problem" that needs to be solved, or do you believe a permanent War on Poverty should be justified. Providing for the common defense and general welfare requires income redistribution. Poverty is still with us, officially.

I only believe in correcting for market inefficiencies in a market friendly manner in order to obtain those market based metrics. We have unemployment numbers. Why not solve simple poverty when due to a lack of gainful employment, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines? Simply increasing the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets can help improve the efficiency of our economy and general tax revenue.

 

First I'll address the question in the title:

Capitalism isn't a book or a movie with a neat plot, a climax and a conclusion. It's an emergent form of organizing a society and has lead to an enormous amount of wealth and prosperity for virtually everyone who participates.

This implies that a person is entitled to what someone else has created. What folks deserve is the opportunity and means to acquire these things, not the things themselves. I also believe in a civilized society that people (especially children) shouldn't go hungry, how that can be achieved is a more challenging question.

Not necessarily true, the number of people receiving the minimum wage is rather small and a huge part of what they purchase as a percentage of their income are things that don't have a great deal of price volatility for one reason or another. So the idea that raising the MW will directly and instantaneously result in higher prices on groceries/gas/rent is nonsense.

Only in fantasy land will there not be an underclass, people aren't machines and thus we'll make different choices or be born into circumstances some of which will result in lower earning potential, we all ought to have the same opportunity, but I have no interest in ensuring that outcomes are the same.

You don't say? Like making even the poorest folks living in industrialized nations richer than our ancestors ever imagined? Yea, I'd call it an advantage.

The problem isn't that we automate, but that wages aren't consistent with that increased productivity. I frankly hate this line of thinking... would you prefer to we go back to a time with less automation, back breaking labor, more on-the-job injuries, and incredibly tedious tasks for factory workers?

 

Minimum wage laws don't "solve" poverty. In fact they make it much worse because those who's productivity is below the minimum wage will be without jobs. Increasing the circulation of money is a meaningless concept. Money is just a means of indirect exchange. If you make shoes, you trade the shoes for money and then the money for other goods and services. Money is just the middleman, and making more of it or fiddling with it doesn't create more real wealth. The real wealth is the goods and services that are produced.

And no, wealth redistribution is not required for anything except lining the pockets of people with stolen loot.

 

Clearly not consistent with human behavior. Rewarding people with money for their poverty will motivate them to stay in poverty.

 

Wrong! You'd have to assume a backward static labour supply approach (where work is treated as neutral, i.e. a means to simply exchange leisure for consumption). Work isn't neutral, nor can we adopt a static approach that ignores the consequences of risk.

In summary, your position is neither consistent with international comparison or supported by labour economics

 

Your position is not supported by reality. Humans respond to motivations. If the government gives out low-interest student loans, more people will go to college. If the government gives out tax deductions for purchasing a house, more people will buy a house. This is econ 101 buddy.

 

Solving poverty nor increasing the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets is meaningless; except for special pleading purposes. What private sector would be worse off if market participants are not experiencing a poverty money to circulate?

 

I've used econ 101 to show that you do not understand it. Are you seriously telling me that work is neutral and doesn't derive utility in itself?

And your comment 'not supported by reality' isn't consistent with the empirical reality. Poverty is higher and social mobility is lower in the US, compared to countries with more generous welfare systems. Ignoring that just makes your position one of ideological flaw

 

Capitalism by default creates the 'haves' and the' have-nots'. The 'haves' probably enjoy a happy ending. The 'have-nots' do not enjoy a happy middle or ending. It is alarming the quantity of 'have-nots' that we have today...people in debt, people late on servicing their debt, no savings, living pay check to pay check, no pay check, government welfare. But I'm guessing no matter which economic system is in place, the same percentage of people will not find happy endings...

 

I agree to disagree. Promoting the general welfare could imply using Socialism to bailout Capitalism, like usual, and ensure full employment of resources in our market for labor. It could be done with existing legal and physical infrastructure and could be a cost effective alternative to welfare, as we currently know it.