Does Capitalism Inevitably Produce Inequalities? The answer is yes.

Agree 100% with the Op's sentiment here. Though imperfect American capitalism has overcome many hardships but managed to pull through all while creating one of the freest most wealth diverse society's to ever exist. The fact we as a nation survived 9/11 and the subsequent proxy wars that followed shows capitalism still has some fight left in her. Though every such attack or hardship erodes at the fabric of a truly free capitalist society. But that's the beauty of being given inalienable human rights by our ancestors.

No matter how far the establishment succeeds at dividing us politically, racially, economically, and by education level we as a people have all tasted the same freedoms and protections granted under this system. No matter your occupation, gender, skin color, or religious beliefs. When these constructs are threatened there will be a realization. The most radical liberal will stand shoulder to shoulder with the most extremist conservative to protect these ideals. Because the alternative is far worse...

a reply to: JAY1980

You, like many americans, give capitalism too much credit. You have never actually even had it, nobody has, but you still laude it and want to attribute america's success to it.

originally posted by: crazyewok
So does communism where everyone is "equal" but some are more equal than others.

All economic systems suck.

Capitalism is just the one that sucks slightly less.


Hopefully we can find a better system one day but until that time we are stuck with capitalism.

it's not capitalism, it's the distribution of capitalists profits...."always follow the money" is the key research people need to do....there has been massive increases in the income and assets of the top 1% of the worlds population, but not for the people that actually do the work......mix in a few decades of this happening, with stagnant wages for the workers and you get an economy that does not have ENOUGH workers making ENOUGH in wages to keep up with inflation....the general economy will go into depression, at the same time that the wealthy will snap up assets (land, businesses, property, etc.)......a CPA who is also a estate lawyer told me that if America eliminates the estate tax, within 3 to 4 generations, 90% of America will be owned by the top 1%.....that's the dirty little secret you will never hear from the MSM

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JAY1980

You, like many americans, give capitalism too much credit. You have never actually even had it, nobody has, but you still laude it and want to attribute america's success to it.

I agree.....every time I hear the phrase "free trade" my BS meter goes off, because the is NO SUCH THING!....same with the phrase "clean coal" , no such thing....the U.S. should change it's name to the "united corporations of America"...one other thing....does anyone think it's odd that any type of graft, corruption, lawsuits, etc., by corporate America never reaches the MSM...(except for situations like Enron where the corruption was overwhelming)?.....
it's like pay attention to this hand (racism, shootings, tornados, hurricanes, local crimes, etc.)...while the other hand (massive increases in assets by the wealthy) never makes news....

a reply to: daskakik

You, like many americans, give capitalism too much credit. You have never actually even had it, nobody has, but you still laude it and want to attribute america's success to it.

You, like many americans, do not give it enough credit. You've never lived without it and have taken it for granted.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You are correct. Our current form of "capitalism" relies on a cheap labor force and cheap materials in order to maximize profit. In return, it relies on socialism to care for their workforce because they are unwilling to raise their wages to the point where they can sustain themselves.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not american so there goes that argument.

Free market capitalism has never existed at the national level of any country. Large businesses and governments always meddle in the marketplace and influence things.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: daskakik

You, like many americans, give capitalism too much credit. You have never actually even had it, nobody has, but you still laude it and want to attribute america's success to it.

You, like many americans, do not give it enough credit. You've never lived without it and have taken it for granted.

you're right....but, I also have never jumped off a cliff, and I fully understand what the consequences of that would be if I did.....as with most people who respond on social media, the loudest and most outrageous "few", tend to come across as representing the "many"......sadly, education, science, and critical-thinking, are being denounced as being "elitist" by fear-mongering loudmouths.
this is why so many of us here were stunned by trumps' election win, even more so by the amount of Americans that actually voted for him.

a reply to: infolurker

I agree with you-I've seen that too. However, could that be a side effect of inequality? If everyone you know works hard for very little, there must be a temptation to do nothing for effectively the same money. Plus, on benefits you dont risk losing your job, so you are actually in an economically safer place. Animals evolve to fill every niche-maybe social systems do as well. If the people at the bottom did OK, the career welfare claimant would no longer seem like a worthwhile niche.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: lawman27
The OP's point is, since that is inevitable, we shouldnt blame the poor for being poor anymore than we should blame an old person for not being young.

Resources are not as finite as one might think, that is the point everyone is missing, and it is an excuse people latch on to. You bring up an interesting point... what is poor? Why is poor bad or good, same with wealthy? There is no blame game just reality that people do not achieve all they want to in life...There are happy people with little and sad people a much, so when someone complains about where they are in life that is something they need to get over.

I think we use the word poor too freely and we call 50% of America poor, but poor based on desires is a lot different than poor based on survival.

I dont want to argue for the sake of it, but I think you will find resources are finite. In fact, thats the basis of our economy. If there was an infinite amount of gold, it would be worthless. The same is true of any resource you care to name, whether its water, land, chickens, whatever. Thats why inequality is inevitable. If you build yourself a 100 room mansion with 300 acres of garden, a lot of people will go homeless, because you have just raised the price of land beyond their means.

unless we come up with some way of making resources effectively infinite, more for you will always mean less for someone else.

Having said that, you make a valid point. Provided you have enough, happiness doesnt need to be linked to wealth. As yet, nobody has invented a system that provides a decent basic standard of living AND opportunity.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not american so there goes that argument.

Free market capitalism has never existed at the national level of any country. Large businesses and governments always meddle in the marketplace and influence things.

Sorry for the assumption. You like many westerners.

a reply to: introvert

You are correct. Our current form of "capitalism" relies on a cheap labor force and cheap materials in order to maximize profit. In return, it relies on socialism to care for their workforce because they are unwilling to raise their wages to the point where they can sustain themselves.

Welfare is not socialism. Taxes is not socialism. Therefor, capitalism doesn't rely on socialism.

originally posted by: lawman27

I dont want to argue for the sake of it, but I think you will find resources are finite. In fact, thats the basis of our economy. If there was an infinite amount of gold, it would be worthless. The same is true of any resource you care to name, whether its water, land, chickens, whatever. Thats why inequality is inevitable. If you build yourself a 100 room mansion with 300 acres of garden, a lot of people will go homeless, because you have just raised the price of land beyond their means.

unless we come up with some way of making resources effectively infinite, more for you will always mean less for someone else.

Having said that, you make a valid point. Provided you have enough, happiness doesnt need to be linked to wealth. As yet, nobody has invented a system that provides a decent basic standard of living AND opportunity.

Unless we have filled every square foot of land in America we have living space, so yes there is a finite aspect to it, so lets talk once America hits a few billion.

I need you to show me the path of a poor person in America where limited resources is the reason for them being poor. We are poor because we are a consumer based society. Spend Spend Spend like there ain't no end is the mentality. The reason why people want $15 min wage is because of their spending habits and they want a job that requires zero skills, takes a day or two to master and needs no more than 8th grade education to be a living wage job.

We also have an issue with what is common throughout the world of living within the synergy of a group. Here in America everything is based on a individual living standard that is actually a privilege and not a right as so many see it as.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Sorry for the assumption. You like many westerners.

I don't think I'm a westerner either. Might depend on who you ask.

Either way. The post I replied to said free market capitalism. I like to use the definition used by anarcho-capitalists which is that capitalism is 100% free markets. Anything else is not capitalism. Avoids the use of sliding scales by those who insist that their golden cage is the best.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

You are correct. Our current form of "capitalism" relies on a cheap labor force and cheap materials in order to maximize profit. In return, it relies on socialism to care for their workforce because they are unwilling to raise their wages to the point where they can sustain themselves.

Welfare is not socialism. Taxes is not socialism. Therefor, capitalism doesn't rely on socialism.

I respectfully disagree. At it's basic root, welfare is socialist in nature. You are using the collective wealth of a nation to provide for those that are in need. Certain taxes are socialist as well.

No matter, this opens up into a topic I find very interesting and that is socialism vs. welfare capitalism. In doing so, you find the inherent problems with both systems and a need for a good mix between the two.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The reality is that not everyone can lift themselves up in any system. There are dumb people that no matter what you do they won't succeed. That's what charity is for. That doesn't mean that people should be forced to take care of the lazy or stupid at the point of a gun.

Jaden

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I started off enlisted in the military, had roommates until my 30s, reset everything after a divorce at 39 and today I'm top 5% wage earner. How? Just kept going getting better and better though life.

I see so many young like the 99%ers who have the I want it all now! attitude. They expected that 100,000 job out of school...
They don't get it and it becomes an inequality thing...

Here's the thing though. $100,000 isn't what it used to be. Because of that extra zero it functions as a psychological milestone but it's purchasing power really isn't all that good anymore. It's just a solid middle class wage, and in some cities it's not even that. For example, in San Francisco the median wage is $90,000/year. 100k is barely even average.

What you're effectively saying is that kids have the attitude that they want to get a degree, become competent in something, then are upset that they're not even at an average wage.

$100,000 today has roughly double the purchasing power of what minimum wage had back in 1970, which would be the equivalent of $4/hour back then, or $8000/year. Back then, $100k was something impressive, but the $100k from back then is more like $1,000,000/year today.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I love when people talk about minimum wage in the USA. I'm not sure if they realize how very few people actually make minimum wage. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, all hire in at above minimum wage. 3.3 million according to Google make Min wage (or less), but that includes workers who collect tips. So abouts 1%. And an unknown number of them receive tips that may or may not push them above min. wage.

Anyone who wants to in the USA can earn as much as they want. The key work is WANT to. In my opinion that's the key difference between Capitalism and the others.

Paying near the minimum wage is effectively paying the minimum wage. This argument usually comes from people who are in the $10-$15 range, who think that because they can see others doing worse, that they're somehow in a better position. It's not about the minimum wage itself, it's about the fact that wages for the bottom 80%, and closing in on bottom 90% have been stagnating or declining for a generation now.

If you make anything less than $26/hour right now, you have less purchasing power than someone in the 60's had at minimum wage.

originally posted by: Aazadan

$100,000 today has roughly double the purchasing power of what minimum wage had back in 1970, which would be the equivalent of $4/hour back then, or $8000/year. Back then, $100k was something impressive, but the $100k from back then is more like $1,000,000/year today.

You are not making sense...lol

I'm not saying 100k is impressive today as it was in 1970s, but it is not a starting wage out of college either. Median also isn't a starting wage out of college, and never has been. Do you see similarities below?

2016 average income 46,000
Car Cost: $25,449
Change From Previous Year: +$117
Car Cost in 2016 Dollars: $25,449

1970 average income 7000 in 2017 dollars 44,000
Car Cost: $3,543
Change From Previous Year: -$14
Car Cost in 2016 Dollars: $21,625

Rent in 1970 was 200 that equals to 1300 today

Houses are more expensive today with 360,000 average range and that would be 57,000 compared to 24,000 1970s dollars, but then we want more and more so houses today are at least 1000 sq ft larger than houses built in the 70s.

If we built 2 1400 sq ft houses that would be 24,000 1970 and 179,000 2017 (123 sq ft average) or 28,000 1970s dollars.

Lot's of things are actually cheaper, look at gas at .59 in 1970 and .48 today in 1970s dollars, also we get 2x miles per gallon.

In the end places are about the same, what is different is we spend more on what we see as a right and not a privilege.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

You are correct. Our current form of "capitalism" relies on a cheap labor force and cheap materials in order to maximize profit. In return, it relies on socialism to care for their workforce because they are unwilling to raise their wages to the point where they can sustain themselves.

Welfare is not socialism. Taxes is not socialism. Therefor, capitalism doesn't rely on socialism.

I respectfully disagree. At it's basic root, welfare is socialist in nature. You are using the collective wealth of a nation to provide for those that are in need. Certain taxes are socialist as well.

No matter, this opens up into a topic I find very interesting and that is socialism vs. welfare capitalism. In doing so, you find the inherent problems with both systems and a need for a good mix between the two.

To be clear, the government is using taxes to render public services. There is nothing socialist about taxes. There is nothing socialist about public services. There is nothing socialist about providing for others. All have been around long before socialism. What is socialist about it is the government or state monopoly on all those services. But I'm not sure how you can otherwise connect the two.