Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 21, 2019 - 11:30am PT
|
Check it out:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/oxfam-world-richest-26-wealth-poorest-190121054249908.html
This is a natural consequence of capitalism, where private interests become more powerful than the regulatory mechanisms of governments.
Our society has an overly simplistic dogmatic view of economic doctrines. We need to get beyond "capitalism is good" and "communism and socialism are bad" and examine how mapping reality into a formula often involves more nuance, to describe behaviors at different scales.
Take physics for example. We can model the trajectory of a ball just using gravity and an initial speed and direction. That works reasonably well. But when considering objects that are very tiny, we can't rely on gravity to predict their motion or behavior. The models are more nuanced to account for different forces (electromagnetic, strong, weak) that have more or less effect at different scales and distances.
We need to have this type of nuance in our economic models. Capitalism is great when you have independent small businesses operating on a fairly level playing field in a market. But when you try to model the outcomes of a system with very large businesses, multinational corporations, you see they are big enough to change the rules in their favor, and the natural progression is to aggregate into larger and larger entities with the natural outcome of increasing the divide between rich and poor. If we know the logical outcome of our policies will lead to a dramatic imbalance between the rich and the poor, which is passed on through generations so is not even the result of a meritocracy (which itself can be debated to be a good or bad thing for society)... well if we know this should we stay on the same path? Is this the future we want to create for ourselves?
I'm curious to hear the thoughts of folks like madbolter in response to this. He typically has a very pro-independence mindset, but is also a logical person to consider the likely outcome from a set of inputs or rules.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 12:08pm PT
|
This is a natural consequence of capitalism, where private interests become more powerful than the regulatory mechanisms of governments.
I usually find you thoughtful and measured, but that statement is flatly untrue.
IF "we the people" would commit ourselves to the principle that the federal government has VERY limited powers, and that taxation of any form to sustain powers beyond those constitutes theft and a violation of our basic liberties, then the federal government would not be the all-powerful entity it has become. In that context, "we the people" would be united on some very basic principles, including those of (as it is now popularly called) "campaign finance reform" and staunch anti-trust enforcement. Not to mention NOTHING like the present welfare state.
Instead, we've observed a slow slide (spanning over 100 years) of the SCOTUS interpreting (primarily) the interstate commerce clause "larger and larger," completely disconnected from original intent, and "we the people" have become MUCH more interested in USING the increasing power of the federal government to serve our own interests instead of thinking in principled terms.
Now, "both sides" are committed to sweeping and pervasive welfare and theft, committed to USING the federal government to FORCE a particular "moral perspective" down the throats of "the other half," and both sides claim the moral high ground while they USE the federal government to do things that both federalist and anti-federalist framers explicitly decried.
There is NO moral high ground in the present federal government, and BOTH the "protection" of "the poor" AND "the wealthy" violates the principles of the founding of the USA. It's been a slow, stealthy assault on our principles and freedoms. But to say that it's the "natural result of capitalism" is, imo, completely wrong-headed.
Instead, it's the natural result of intellectual laziness and the innate desire human beings have to wield the ultimate power: Forcing other human beings to live as YOU want them to, to value what you value, and to define "happiness" exactly as you do. We want to reproduce OURSELVES throughout "society," and the war between the aisles at this point just is a war between competing ideologies regarding HOW PEOPLE SHALL LIVE.
But the federal government was NEVER supposed to be touching that question in the value-laden sense it is present meant!
The final falsification of your statement is that history reveals that economic systems NEVER, EVER "distribute wealth" equally or "fairly." Socialism, Communism, AND Capitalism have all produced radical inequalities of distribution.
The "excesses" of our present "Capitalism" are NOT a refection of the principles of "Capitalism" as envisioned in the founding of this nation. It would take a book-length post to even start to outline the MANY ways in which our present system is utterly manipulated, and NOT just to ensure that the "fat cats" get fatter. The problem is much more layered than that. As just one example, the "Federal Reserve" (which is neither) manipulates the value of money and loans OUR (perpetually value-deflated) money back to us at interest.
But "progressives" believe in their own forms of theft as well. Thus, today, in this nation it is literally impossible to outright OWN anything.
And that fact alone reveals how far we have drifted from the clearly-expressed intentions of the framers.
Where we are has very little to do with "Capitalism" and very much to do with the natural tendency of the federal government (any central government!) to grasp more and more power, which results from the natural desire people have to control that ever-increasing power. In THAT context, regardless of economic system, it is guaranteed that the rich and powerful will grow richer and more powerful. CONTROL is the goal, not wealth. Wealth is just a means to the end of CONTROL. And this has been the historical norm, regardless of economic system!
We literally have only OURSELVES (and NOT this or that economic system) to blame. We HAD a principled republic, but Franklin was ultimately prescient when he responded to "What did we get?" with: "A republic, if you can keep it." Our framers presumed that we would value liberty above everything else. Sadly, WE value "comfort" and "safety" above everything else. So, we are ripe for the plucking.
|
|
Robb
Social climber
Cat Box
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 12:21pm PT
|
Outstanding MB1!
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 12:33pm PT
|
Pretty ironic that California, which has had almost an unbroken Dem legislature since 1959,
has the highest poverty rate in the nation.
|
|
DonC
climber
CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 12:45pm PT
|
^^ what is your definition and source? I have some familiarity with Census Bureau data and latest published information does not support this statement.
Edit - Edward - I am aware of what is in the press, but those are not primary data sources. Do you have links or references to source data? I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but would rather see the source data rather than read interpretations by the press.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 12:57pm PT
|
I saw it a day or so ago and I must admit I was surprised that we would be ahead of Mississippi.
Lotta ways to measure poverty besides just income such as factored against cost of living
which is the Supplemental Poverty Measure. If you look at Wiki CA is only 35th by income
but we’re No 1 by the SPM. WOOT! Hard to beat a nice rat and roach infested apartment
for $1500+/month in the hood.
We’re also only 3 from the top by Gini Coefficient! All those liberal billionaires in Silicone Valley
and Hollywood Hypocrites are rocking that casbah.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 01:41pm PT
|
a pitchfork is just a tool. a couple million or billion pitchforks though...
|
|
Chugach
Trad climber
Vermont
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 01:57pm PT
|
OP, I'm a capitalist and I agree, this is the natural outcome of capitalism. It's been said that if Karl Icahn could live forever he'd ultimately control every dollar on earth. Some people are just like that, I know one. If I know 1,000 other people, none of them are like that. The earth is about half fools and schmucks and maybe 0.01% devoted geniuses which is why we're always debating between enabling the do-ers to create value for everyone (capitalism) and some concept like socialism where less is distributed more evenly.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 02:11pm PT
|
some concept like socialism where less is distributed more evenly
Only in pipe dreams.
Socialists seem to presume that "equality of outcome" is a thing. Apparently it's something to be striven toward. But nowhere in nature is it a thing.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 02:16pm PT
|
C’mon, MB, as laissez faire as I am “more evenly” distributed wealth is desirable,
as long as they’re not taking it from me. 🤡
Back to socialism, the EU is doing a heck of a job beating that horse to death.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 02:33pm PT
|
as long as they’re not taking it from me
LOL... yeah, the Devil's certainly in the details!
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 02:52pm PT
|
An 11% decline in the earnings of the poor is an alarming statistic.
The world's richest 26 people are just pigs.
My apologies to Porky and all the cans of Spam.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:10pm PT
|
The world's richest 26 people are just pigs.
And the "poor" are just lazy.
See how caricatures work?
When you really think through what happened in places like Somalia, you'll abandon caricature.
|
|
BruceHildenbrand
Social climber
Mountain View/Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:22pm PT
|
What is interesting to me is that some people seem to think that people who are rich didn't earn their money. Why is that so?
|
|
Aeriq
Sport climber
100-year Visitor
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:29pm PT
|
If you can take it into your next life then you are rich .....
I agree with the duck!
All the riches I have are the the ways my spirit has grown this life, and the lessons I learned that I needed to learn this time around.
I know what they are, I have learned some of them - enough to have some level of protection this life.
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:33pm PT
|
What is interesting to me is that some people seem to think that people who are rich didn't earn their money. Why is that so?
Because many of them inherited it!
I don't recognize many of the names on the top 26 list, but I see several people named Walton. I believe they are the children of the Wal Mart guy. Maybe they did lots of chores, lol
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:41pm PT
|
Please explain what's wrong with inherited wealth.
Nations themselves bask in the blessings of the inherited wealth of past generations. Some nations and peoples have honored that inheritance of knowledge and wealth, others have not.
Where in nature, or in what scientific or philosophical principles, do you see that passing along benefits to your offspring is "unfair" or "evil"?
The left smuggles in a PRESUMPTION of "equality of outcome = fairness" in all of its economic discussions. But we see this nowhere in nature.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:55pm PT
|
I know some rich people with inherited moolah but most worked for it, hard. I have two friends
who grew up not too far apart (but didn’t know each other) on hardscrabble farms in Illinois.
When I say dirt poor I mean that literally. The richest guy I know, and we’re talking really rich,
also grew up poor. Their common denominator? Education. Well, I guess they also share
the work ethic.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:58pm PT
|
^^^ You can't say that last part.
Recant! Recant!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!