|
Author
|
Topic: Ideal Capitalism
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
Message 1 of 39 (607566)
03-04-2011 3:20 PM
|
|
|
Ideal Capitalism
In Message 346 Phage suggests that the ideal situation for a capitalist society in terms of democracy, competition and the general aim of achieving a skilled, productive, efficient, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content democratic society is best served by a situation where 1% of the population own 99% of the wealth.
Phage writes: 99% of the population is competing for 99% of the wealth as investment capital. Why would you consider that stifling competition? Apparently Phage has never heard of the term "monopoly" or considered the idea that overriding influence is not conducive to competition or innovation.
Straggler writes: 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. Phage in response writes: These are the same choices have always existed. Personally I think its more likely for a person who lives in luxury with the benefit of access to superior education and advisors to be convinced to behave wisely. At the very least it seems conducive to altruism. Apparently rather than society having any democratic say in the future direction of investment Phage prefers an almost feudal system of owners and serfs.
Phage writes: At the very least it seems conducive to altruism. Who needs democracy when you have a financial autocracy that are just naturally inspired to be altruistic? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 2 of 39 (607609)
03-05-2011 7:55 AM
|
|
|
Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Coffee House threads do not have to go through the thread proposal process. Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 3 of 39 (607816)
03-07-2011 10:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
03-04-2011 3:20 PM
|
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
Continuing from Message 345 Straggler writes: 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? The fact that a resource is finite has direct practical consequences of how much of that resource is available. 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. 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. The money that the top 1% has isn't just sitting in a big pile doing nothing, its invested in all kinds of stuff and other people are using it. I think you're wrong when you say that the top 1% having it means that it isn't available to anyone else.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 3:20 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2011 10:48 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied | | | Message 5 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 10:51 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied | | | Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 03-07-2011 10:59 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
Hi Catholic Scientist
The money that the top 1% has isn't just sitting in a big pile doing nothing, its invested in all kinds of stuff and other people are using it. The argument against giving tax breaks to these ultra rich is that there is no guarantee that a dime will be spent in the US. Likewise you have no guarantee that any profits from investments will be spent in the locals where the money was obtained. Money spent locally benefits local economies. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2011 10:39 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
Is 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth conducive to democracy, competition and the general aim of achieving a skilled, productive, efficient, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content democratic capitalist society? If it isn't ideal why wouldn't we implement counter-measures to avert this inevitable (as described by Phage) outcome of unfettered free-market capitalism?
CS writes: I think you're wrong when you say that the top 1% having it means that it isn't available to anyone else. I didn't say that.
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.5
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
If their wealth were at work improving the wealth holdings of others, then their relative wealth would diminish, not increase. They would, for example, make a sound return on loans, but the folks who started or expanded businesses would make more. Instead, with historically low tax rates on the wealthy, the government borrows from China and the wealthy buy Treasuries and municipal bonds, for example, that are minimally taxed (not as income) The accumulation of capital can benefit all--that's how it used to work. The portion of their wealth that improved the fortunes of others was generally called taxes. Edited by Omnivorous, : one too many insteads
Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare Real things always push back.
-William James
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2011 10:39 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 7 of 39 (607820)
03-07-2011 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
03-07-2011 10:51 AM
|
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
CS writes: I think you're wrong when you say that the top 1% having it means that it isn't available to anyone else. I didn't say that. What did you mean by the following?
quote:
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 10:51 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 11:19 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
CS writes: The money that the top 1% has isn't just sitting in a big pile doing nothing, its invested in all kinds of stuff and other people are using it. Note the term "using".
CS writes: What did you mean by the following? Straggler writes: 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. I mean exactly what it says. Are you conflating "usage" with the power to decide what gets invested in? Have you ever heard the term "monopoly"? Do you understand that Adam Smith himself saw the need for a strong state to be able to regulate capitalism away from some of it's natural tendencies? Free-markets are not free if they are dominated by individuals or cartels are they? And how much political influence comes as a result of owning 99% of the wealth? I'll ask again - Is 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth conducive to democracy, competition and the general aim of achieving a skilled, productive, efficient, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content democratic capitalist society? If it isn't ideal why wouldn't we implement counter-measures to avert this inevitable (as described by Phage) outcome of unfettered free-market capitalism?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 9 of 39 (607827)
03-07-2011 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
03-07-2011 11:19 AM
|
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
CS writes: The money that the top 1% has isn't just sitting in a big pile doing nothing, its invested in all kinds of stuff and other people are using it.
Note the term "using".
CS writes: What did you mean by the following? Straggler writes: 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. I mean exactly what it says. Are you conflating "usage" with the power to decide what gets invested in? Deciding what gets invested in is a way to use it, isn't it? What it exactly says till seems incorrect as though you think the people who "have" the money are just sitting on big piles of it and not doing anything with it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 11:19 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 11:45 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied | | | Message 18 by Taq, posted 03-07-2011 2:46 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
Which part of the difference between making it unavailable for any use at all and holding inordinate, undemocratic and unhealthy power over the future course of investment is confusing you here?
CS writes: What it exactly says till seems incorrect as though you think the people who "have" the money are just sitting on big piles of it and not doing anything with it. If that is what I had meant that is what I would have said. I didn't say that. This should be a clue to you. In fact I even gave you examples of it being used to setup a series of creation institutes or a South Pacific sweat shop or two. Surely this constitutes "usage" even by your evidently limited understanding of the term? Now to the topic: Is 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth conducive to democracy, competition and the general aim of achieving a skilled, productive, efficient, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content democratic capitalist society? If it isn't ideal why wouldn't we implement counter-measures to avert this inevitable (as described by Phage) outcome of unfettered free-market capitalism?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 11 of 39 (607834)
03-07-2011 11:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
03-07-2011 11:45 AM
|
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
Which part of the difference between making it unavailable for any use at all and holding inordinate, undemocratic and unhealthy power over the future course of investment is confusing you here? The part where this line says anything like that:
quote:
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.
CS writes: What it exactly says till seems incorrect as though you think the people who "have" the money are just sitting on big piles of it and not doing anything with it. If that is what I had meant that is what I would have said. I didn't say that. This should be a clue to you. But how does them having it make it unavailable for anyone else to invest it unless they are just sitting on it?
In fact I even gave you examples of it being used to setup a series of creation institutes or a South Pacific sweat shop or two. Surely this constitutes "usage" even by your evidently limited understanding of the term? Yeah, and those other people are going to use it too. It wouldn't be unavailable for them to invest it.
Now to the topic: Is 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth conducive to democracy, competition and the general aim of achieving a skilled, productive, efficient, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content democratic capitalist society? I don't know, I suppose it could be.
If it isn't ideal why wouldn't we implement counter-measures to avert this inevitable (as described by Phage) outcome of unfettered free-market capitalism? I don't know why we wouldn't.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 11:45 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 12:05 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Ideal Capitalism
You seem determined to engage in semantic pedantics for reasons that are entirely unclear.
CS writes: Straggler writes: If it isn't ideal why wouldn't we implement counter-measures to avert this inevitable (as described by Phage) outcome of unfettered free-market capitalism? I don't know why we wouldn't. Then it seems you are arguing with me purely because it is me. Practically on principle. Old habits die hard I guess......
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 13 of 39 (607839)
03-07-2011 12:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by Straggler
03-07-2011 12:05 PM
|
|
I didn't understand how your claim made sense and I was trying to find out what you meant. You've evaded explanation in lieu of distracting questions... old habits indeed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 12:05 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 12:35 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
CS writes: I didn't understand how your claim made sense and I was trying to find out what you meant. I told you what I meant. I gave you examples that directly countered what you were mistakenly accusing me of saying. You seemed to even pretty much agree with the gist of some of my position.
CS writes: You've evaded explanation in lieu of distracting questions... Questions pertaining to the OP you mean? Naughty naughty me.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 15 of 39 (607848)
03-07-2011 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
03-07-2011 12:35 PM
|
|
I told you what I meant. All I see is questions... Can you quote yourself where you did this explaining?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 12:35 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 2:01 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2