Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 307 of 350 (607069)
03-01-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Phage0070
03-01-2011 6:04 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
Perhaps, but surely that is an argument in favor of holding compatible economic, social, and political views.
I am. I see the chosen economic system as underpinning the society and it's structure. On that basis I have been agreeing with you that there can be many benefits to society derived from a capitalist system. But where you seem to see it as an all or nothing freemarket thing I think that a capitalist society needs additional checks and balances to ensure that the economic side of things doesn't run away with itself to the detriment of society. Because it's underpining of an effective social structure is the very reason for choosing an economic system in the first place.
Phage writes:
Everyone should have the freedom to allocate their hard-won resources toward whatever ends they choose, including making the future of their children more secure.
Straggler writes:
OK. But surely this is perfectly achievable without accepting the runaway concentration of "unearned" wealth that the system you have described in this thread seems to inevitably result in if restraints are not put in place to counter this innate tendency.
Why do you say its "unearned"?
Straggler writes:
What is classified as "earned" or "unearned" is essentially defined by the terms of economic system in place.
If that were the sense in which you used it, then your original statement is not intelligible.
There was a reason I put the word unearned inside "these". I think you are being somewhat pedantic here.
Phage writes:
Both yields are equally earned.
Whether they are defined as "earned" or not depends on economic system in place . It certainly isn't the case that your assertion is true by some sort of divine, immutable and unquestionable moral decree in the way that you seem to be suggesting.
Phage writes:
There is a reason we don't just throw everyone's money into a pot and pay for the best things for society overall.
Of course. There is a balance to be had. But that balance needs counter-measures to be implemented if it is to to be achieved. Unfettered capitalism will not always provide the benefits to society that were the reasons for choosing that economic system in the first place.
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
But that system, as you have described it, all but inevitably results in a runaway concentration of wealth if no counter-balances are introduced.
Ok?
Is there any concentration of wealth that you think would be socially divisive or economically unsustainable enough to warrant intervention? 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth? 95%? 99%?
Do you think that in order to function capitalism requires the unfettered concentration of wealth? Is it desirable and necessary as far as you are concerned that the top 1% are in possession of 40% (and increasing) of the wealth? Is it not possible to devise a successful capitalist system which doesn't also result in such an intense and increasing concentration of resource?
Do you consider the ever-increasing concentration of wealth that arises in the system you have described to be a desirable outcome? Or is it just a "necessary" by-product as far as you are concerned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 6:04 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 7:58 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 325 of 350 (607163)
03-02-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Phage0070
03-01-2011 7:58 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
Is there any concentration of wealth that you think would be socially divisive or economically unsustainable enough to warrant intervention? 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth? 95%? 99%?
I'm finding it difficult to draw a line due to not having any idea of what danger you are trying to prevent.
The idea that the concentration of wealth at any given point in time is irrelevant in practical terms only makes sense if you think that there is an unlimited amount of wealth in existence at any given point in time. Do you think the amount of wealth in existence at any point in time is unlimited?
Phage writes:
This means that the creation of wealth is an accelerating process and the only way to avoid those sorts of concentration is to simply take it from those who own it, who made it.
Well you say made. But actually the bulk of the wealth acquired by the stratospherically wealthy is simply a direct consequence of the ever increasing concentration of wealth that the economic system you have described inevitably results in isn’t it? But I see where you are going wrong more generally. You are conflating the term earnings as defined by and derived from a particular economic system with the concept of earned as applied to some sort of innate moral right to ownership. Can you see that they are not the same thing?
Phage writes:
and give them nothing in return
Well they get to be the incredibly privileged wealthy elite in a society that runs on an economic system that didn’t just allow a tiny few to become stratospherically wealthy but which made it practically inevitable. Those who have benefited most are being asked for nothing more than to contribute a bit more to supporting the system that facilitated their stratospheric wealth in the first place and which underpins the society which makes that wealth possible.
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
Do you think that in order to function capitalism requires the unfettered concentration of wealth?
No, but I understand that wealth aids in creating more wealth.
OK. But creates wealth for who? We choose our economic system don’t we? It is not God given is it? To what ultimate purpose do we want the economic system we put in place to generate wealth for? What are we ultimately trying to achieve by implementing a capitalist society? Who ultimately have we selected that economic system to benefit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 7:58 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Phage0070, posted 03-02-2011 10:46 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 332 of 350 (607291)
03-03-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Phage0070
03-02-2011 10:46 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
I am not sure why you are inventing hypothetical planets and machines which "churn out real wealth at a stratospheric rate". Do you think this scenario is likely to occur anytime soon? The fact is that the amount of wealth resource in existence in society at any point in time is finite. Therefore the degree to which this finite (note: not static - but finite) wealth is concentrated in (for example) the top 1% has a very practical impact on the amount of wealth available at that point in time to the remaining 99% Surely this is simply mathematically indisputable?
Phage writes:
They don't "run" a free market.
Can you read? I didn't say anybody was "running" the freemarket did I? I said that capitalist society runs on a capitalist economy. Read that which you quoted instead of imbuing me with your false preconceptions about my position.
Phage writes:
For the sake of expediency I am going to assume that legal economic transactions are at the very least morally neutral until indicated otherwise.
That's fine. This obviously includes both returns on investments provided as a result of the capitalist system and the payment of taxes implemented in order to make that economic system achieve it's ultimate intended aim of benefitting society as a whole. Both by your own definition are just "morally neutral" components of the economic system.
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
But creates wealth for who?........
Who ultimately have we selected that economic system to benefit?
For everyone....
Exactly. So now the question is this - Is the ever increasing concentration of wealth that unfettered capitalism inevitably (as you have described it) results in beneficial or detrimental to this aim?
Whatever you might think about woolly liberal notions of social divison and whatnot even on it's own capitalist terms the concentration of wealth amongst a handful of old men and their heirs cannot be good for either competition or entrepreneurial innovation in a capitalist society can it? Thus countermeasures to unfettered capitalism are required.
Phage writes:
..., don't you get that?
I very much do "get that". The question is - Do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Phage0070, posted 03-02-2011 10:46 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:04 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 339 of 350 (607337)
03-03-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Phage0070
03-03-2011 7:04 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
The skyrocketing of a total in no way limits the increase or size of a subset.
I didn't say it did.
I said that the amount of wealth resource in existence in society at any point in time is finite. Do you dispute this?
I said that if a resource is finite at a point in time then the concentration of that resource in the top 1% at that point in time has direct practical consequences for how much of that resource is available to the other 99% at that point in time. Do you dispute this?
These conclusions are surely mathematically indisputable? Inventing planets and money making machines in your examples does not change the facts.
Phage writes:
If you had even tried in the slightest you would see that.
If you had even tried in the slightest you wouldn't be accusing me of saying things that I haven't said.
Phage writes:
I don't have time for the rest of your shit.
  • We choose our economic system on the basis of that which will best serve society as whole.
  • The rules and regulations of the economic model should reflect that aim.
  • Capitalism arguably brings many benefits to society. Thus it is our chosen model.
  • But this economic system as you yourself have described it if left unrestrained results in a runaway concentration of wealth which if left unhindered acts against competition and entrepreneurism which are the driving force behind the innovation and wealth creation that capitalism is supposed to inspire and which lay at the root of us choosing it as our economic system in the first place.
  • Thus for the optimum working of the financial system countermeasures to this natural tendency need to be put in place.
    Hence the need for a tax system which recognises this and which requires that the stratospherically wealthy contribute more to the society that made them that wealthy in the first place.
    Phage writes:
    For the sake of expediency I am going to assume that legal economic transactions are at the very least morally neutral until indicated otherwise.
    Given that you now accept the moral neutrality of both returns on investments and the payment of taxes implemented in order to make that economic system achieve it's ultimate intended aim of benefiting society as a whole - There really seems little to argue about anyway.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 335 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:04 AM Phage0070 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 340 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 10:26 AM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 343 of 350 (607404)
    03-03-2011 3:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 340 by Phage0070
    03-03-2011 10:26 AM


    Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
    Phage writes:
    Straggler writes:
    I said that the amount of wealth resource in existence in society at any point in time is finite. Do you dispute this?
    Nope.
    Good. Previously you could see no problem at all even with the situation where 1% of the population owned 99% of the wealth. Do you still stand by this?
    Phage writes:
    Make a case for this, not just a statement.
    How can effective monopoly of investment wealth possibly promote competition?
    How can investment decisions restricted to socially detached phenomenally wealthy old men and their heirs who need for nothing at all be the best recipe for innovation?
    Phage writes:
    Point?
    That the more concentrated the wealth in (for example) the top 1% at any given point in time the less resource there is at that point in time available to be invested by anyone else. Including the democratically elected government who are usually relied upon to invest in things like education, health, scientific research, national infrastructure etc. etc. The things on which the future productivity of society significantly depends.
    Which means that rather than a democratically determined programme of investment we instead increasingly have a programme defined by the whims of a few old men and their heirs who are so stratospherically wealthy that they are effectively cut-off from the rest of society and who have little need to do anything other than pursue their pet projects. They might decide to invest in the next generation of particle accelerators. Or they might just plough their money into building a chain of creationist institutes.
    Is this concentration of wealth and associated unelected political power good for democracy? For society? To what purpose do we select our economic system if it is not to ultimately create the most skilled, productive, efficent, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content society? I don’t think that runaway concentration of wealth is conducive to this aim.
    Do you?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 340 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 10:26 AM Phage0070 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 344 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2011 4:09 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 346 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:17 PM Straggler has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 345 of 350 (607443)
    03-03-2011 5:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 344 by New Cat's Eye
    03-03-2011 4:09 PM


    CS writes:
    I'm getting the sense that you picture them like this:
    Not at all. Have you actually read my posts in this thread? Or are you, as Phage has done throughout, imbuing me with some sort of stereotypical position based on some sort of ideological preconceptions?
    CS writes:
    The money is still out there moving around and allowing stuff to get done even though that 1% "has" it. Amirite?
    "Stuff"? Depends how much is being hidden in metaphorical mattresses, how much is being ploughed into promoting personal or religious ideologies, how much is being diverted away to setup South Pacific sweatshops etc. etc. etc. etc.
    Ultimately the question is this - Do we design our economic system to achieve a skilled, productive, efficent, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content democratic society? If so capitalism with counter-measures and progressive tax structures in place is arguably a good way to do this.
    Or do we design our society around the idea that an elite miniscule minority have the inalienable right to spend the wealth generated by our chosen economic system as they see fit whatever the consequences of that may be? If this is our aim then unfettered freemarket capitalism is a dead cert.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 344 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2011 4:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024