Thread: An Idiots Guide to Inequality Part 1

Which is why I said "discuss". The claim is absurd? Explain how.

One-liner comments are for simpletons on message boards.

This is a "debate" forum ...

 

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY VS CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY

Socialism, look it up, is not Social Democracy - which constitutes the present governments of the European Union. Socialism practices state-ownership of all the means of production. (Which time, in its wisdom, has shown to be foolhardy.) Whilst the notion Social Democracy accepts that Capitalism is employed as means by which a market-economy supplies/provides the demands of its consumers.

Got it? Or, should I use other words to display the very same notion? Capitalism is not a political-philosophy - it is just a market-mechanism that entails the use of investment capital within a market-economy. That is,the use of private-capital for the provision of goods/services within a market-economy - which, for lack of a better name, I call "Capitalist Democracy".

Social Democracy also assumes that the purposes of a market-economy are not only to generate profits on behalf of Capitalists* - but also to regulate markets, meaning, often, that some markets must be provided by the state. Two of them designated as of prime importance are HealthCare and Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education. Versions of these are allowed to exist in Private Enterprise for those seeking them, but their no-cost public versions are funded by means of taxation.

(Why? Because they are held to be crucial to the well-being of the larger population.)

Furthermore, the unlimited accumulation of Wealth is also considered to be unfair and inequitable since it may lead to Class Domination - especially when Wealth is permitted to interfere with the democratic election process.

Now, pray tell me why the above does not show that a Social Democracy should not be prefered over a perfectly Capitalist Democracy - given that taxation-and-expenditure is typically higher in the former than the latter version of "democracy" ...

*And who is a Capitalist? I am one! I own stock in a variety of companies and they provide to me a return on my investment that is "taxable income". (So, perhaps you are a capitalist as well?)

 

sure it does you are a simple communist who wants govt in control

 

Excellent post, #102, from LafayetteBis, with clear description of terminology.

As is the thesis of a modern "monarchist" class, based on unrestricted wealth accumulation by a few, with concurrent diminishing returns to the majority.

Are the modern 'monarchists' capable of saving themselves, or must social change be forced on them as happened in the case of the French monarchists of the 18th century? (Human nature has not changed, of course: self-interest, self-interest, self-interest).

Admittedly, democracy ought to be able to achieve peaceful positive change, enabling public funding (at decent levels) eg, for universal health-care and education.

But I notice the economic policy of the new centre-right president-elect in France - a country suffering with high unemployment, (and low "competitiveness"?) - includes lower taxes, longer working week, lowering worker dismissal requirements, lowering minimum wages, raising age of retirement etc, - policies typical of the US right - as the path to economic growth.

Will a majority of French people vote for this policy approach, and why?

Can they not see that an international race to the bottom - with lower wages and lower taxes - will not achieve national prosperity, except possibly for the 'winner' of said race?

That's why (you may have noticed) I stress an alternative 'Keynesian-style' (Bretton Woods) approach to global economic trade, overseen by an interventionist IMF, rather than relying on tax transfers alone to achieve more inclusive participation in the riches made available by modern economic productive capacity.

 

of course its very very restricted by only going to those with great products to sell that raise our standard of living. IF you think its unrestricted then get some for me too. See how goody liberalism is?

 

Beneath refutation. You're just saying anything, and have no regard for the truth. You make claim after claim about me and what I have said, but never support them with any direct, verbatim, in-context quotes.

 

free trade is a race to the top. Those who produce at a top level in terms of price and quality win the race to drive up our standard of living. Those who are afraid of the competition get fatter and fatter and more and more second rate. Trade competition between nations, states, and companies makes everyone better. This is why all the worlds economists support it and why we have it.

- - - Updated - - -

so if you are not a simple communist then what are you?

 

It is absurd because you are claiming a vast, complex, and ancient evil -- privilege -- can ONLY be redressed by a minor tweak to an unjust and destructive tax system that is itself a large contributor to that same evil.

 

A geoist: my view is that all have equal individual rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, and that those who are privileged by government to exclude others from the opportunities government, the community and nature provide should make just compensation to the community of those thus excluded.

 

bringiton wrote:

<<<(I'm) a geoist: my view is that all have equal individual rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor,>>>

and Lafayette and I agree with that (Ted doesn't); so people with the same goals should work together in policy formation?

 

Ted wrote (in #107):

<<< Trade competition between nations, states, and companies makes everyone better. This is why all the worlds economists support it and why we have it.>>>

Maybe your *preferred* economists support it; but OTOH:

http://www.skidelskyr.com/site/arti...nces-and-international-monetary-reform-today/

BTW, you questioned current lack of demand in the economy. Speak to the world's shipping companies and ship owners!


On "unrestricted wealth accumulation" (in your #105): by which I mean the observed share of the economy's wealth that is increasingly accruing to the top - for many reasons - all of which have been covered ad infinitum here.

<<<<of course its very very restricted by only going to those with great products to sell that raise our standard of living. IF you think its unrestricted then get some for me too. See how goo(f)y liberalism is?>>>

Back to jester mode? (Not that I understand the above, other than: wouldn't it be great if we could all be 'wealthy' which of course we already all are in many ways other than 'wealth' measured by money - and there is more to life than money).
But on this thread we are talking about the evils of poverty, its causes, and its elimination.

 

I agree the conversation should focus primarily on the 'causes' of poverty, and while I don't feel it will ever be considered eliminated, we should look to finding proper solutions which effectively result in reducing each individual cause in ways acceptable to society as a whole. I totally disagree with ANY one solution fits all causes which our government tends to apply today.

 

Well, at least you got that part right.

Now argue how I got that wrong ...

 

And I am not the only one.

Fro your edification, from WikiP: Progressive Taxation - Economic Effects - excerpt:

And the same applies to the argumentation for a National HealthCare System, which most advanced economies have adopted, except the US.

Need more be said in the defense of changing a warped and unfair upper-income taxation, that is the principal cause of Income Disparity in America. A fact that you seem to deny.

Really? Then say it ...

 

the cause of course is liberalism. China just switch to Republican capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty and saved another 60 million slowly starving to death. Do you understand how liberalism destroys the incentive for both rich and poor to work?

 

Income inequality is caused by huge liberal policies (unions taxes deficits) that drive jobs off shore and replace whats left with 30 million sub minimum wage illegals. Very simple.

 

Unions caused the explosion in inequality?



Deficits are "liberal policies?



High taxes caused inequality?



Wrong on every point. Three complete wrongs in just one post. That's pretty good, even for you.

 

yes they drove entire industries off shore like the auto industry with their huge rip off wages. Now when auto companies open in America they are foreign owned and in non-union states.

- - - Updated - - -

yes Republicans have introduced 30 BBA's to make deficits illegal and Democrats have killed every one of them.

 

obviously, the highest corporate taxes in the world (40%) drove 15 million jobs off shore to lower tax countries. When Ireland dropped its tax to 11% 1200 corporations moved there. Do you know why??

 

The facts belie your baseless claims. Union members has gone way down at the exact same time inequality has skyrocketed.

And not coincidentally, IMO.

The facts belie your baseless claims. Deficits skyrocketed under Republican presidents and came down under Democratic ones. Including the first surplus in decades during Clinton's term.

 

lets help you understand: unions drove 15 million jobs offshore, thus 15 million became unemployed or underemployed and inequal. And, unions membership dropped or disappeared as WalMart 7/11 etc are not union shops. Now do you understand?

 

Both right and left economics are wrong. If the middle class gets the finger.

 

The facts belie your baseless claims.

Unions now represent a vastly smaller portion of the workforce than they did a generation ago, now at less than 1/3 the previous level.

In that same time frame, middle class wages and incomes have stagnated while incomes of the richest skyrocketed.

Not uncoincidentally, IMO, since unions leverage higher wages for workers.

Now do you understand?

 

how can driving 15 million jobs off shore "leverage higher wages"??? When you are unemployed your wages go down not up.

 

Sorry, Becker is your standard neoclassical know-nothing. They deliberately remove the central facts from their theories: land, money, banking, debt, privilege. There's no such thing!