Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

a reply to: jacobe001

I personally know a business owner who literally does most of his work as a service to the community and to provide jobs. It's a very small place and his take home is something like 50, 000 - such people are rare but I'm sure you'll find a huge amount more within small business ownership than you will within the rich.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: deadlyhope

You really don't understand what free market capitalism is, do you?

All the problems you mention are the result of government interference in the market.

You cannot attempt to control a system that thrives on chaos.

Government interference caused by those who stand to gain.

The system does NOT thrive on chaos, it is controlled perfectly , and pretends to be chaos.

originally posted by: deadlyhope

Tell me how Switzerland

Switzerland is capitalist.

It seems capitalists see no problems with a huge amount of wealth in the hands of few people.

You imply capitalism is the reason for the concentration.

You are wrong. The concentration of wealth is made and maintained by political power.

The fraudulent banking practices are all backed by gov for example. The gov needs phony money to keep buying votes.

Capitalism, itself, is a voluntary system for the production of goods and services that suits human motivation to work better than any other economic theory. Actually, Capitalism is the only economics. All other "economic" systems are political first and economics as an afterthought.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The concentration of wealth is made and maintained by political power.

As usual you are leaving out a couple of steps. Political power is fed by those who can make "donations". Laissez-faire lets them "do as they choose" and that includes making bigger government, if it works out better for them.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The concentration of wealth is made and maintained by political power.

As usual you are leaving out a couple of steps. Political power is fed by those who can make "donations". Laissez-faire lets them "do as they choose" and that includes making bigger government, if it works out better for them.

Political power is also fed by human talent and intelligence. Capitalism is a resource of politics. Capitalism is not the cause of politics. The will to power and the acceptance of subservience is the cause of political power.

It is an eternal debate as to which is preferable: total and absolute freedom to acquire as much personal wealth as one can, or the power to limit personal wealth in the hands of a government which decides what to do with the remainder?

The notion - rapidly becoming mythical, unfortunately - that any enterprising individual can make a fortune for themselves if they simply apply themselves hard enough, intelligently enough, and long enough, is what drives faith in capitalism. The problem with people having so much concentrated wealth is that, with the exceptions of the truly philanthropic few who are willing and able to sacrifice much of said wealth for the good of others (the freedom to do which is one of the arguments in favor of capitalism incidentally - volunteerism... if only more people actually did it, but I digress,) greed and corruption mean said wealth becomes destructive or, at minimum, obstructive.

The notion - historically undermined by examples like Stalanism - that government control of wealth is therefore preferable as only a government can ensure that said wealth is utilized for the good of all, is what drives faith in socialism. The problem with a government being what determines the limits on and uses of wealth is that, with the exceptions of truly essential things like roads etc., corruption and political and/or geopolitical agendas render said wealth destructive or, at minimum, obstructive.

Basically, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place with both extremes. The most ideal solution, in my opinion, would be a capitalist system wherein those with great wealth - and everyone, really, as able - took part in a tremendous spirit of volunteerism and philanthropy. Yes, in the form of "producing" and job creation, but also in the form of workable safety nets for those who fall through the cracks, of which there are far more than many wish to acknowledge. People would not be forced or compelled to share their wealth, but would do so, essentially, out of the goodness of their hearts, and all would benefit... without tyranny, and with their liberty intact. And a political discourse and social discourse would exist about how best to implement this. Everyone would be engaged in the issue, as everyone would have a stake in the outcome.

Unfortunately, just as we have a constitution to prevent pure democratic mob rule from curtailing our rights because neither we nor our governments are fully trustworthy, human beings simply don't do that. Or at least, not enough of us do it. So until such time as that changes (and I have hope it someday will,) we will always need "a system," much as I am loath to admit it, to ensure we survive and function essentially.

The question is: what system, and how do we prevent the aforementioned greed and corruption of either extreme from being destructive or obstructive? My opinion is that we need a system which takes the greatest strengths of capitalism - innovation, competition, growth, adaptation, market agility, etc. - and socialism; social programs, some (even extremely high) limits on personal wealth in the form of more effective taxation (as loath as I am to admit that too,) regulation, etc.

And we must all learn to compromise in the facilitation and creation of such a system.

All of that having been said? That's never going to happen in our lifetimes in all likelihood. Gridlock, intransigence, buzzwords, political branding, binary hostility, and the sincere belief by each ideology that theirs is the most just and the other represents - in and of itself, irrespective of form - a great evil which must be opposed and fought, will ensure that. So I don't bother discussing or debating it beyond expressing this simple opinion, because I have seen that - at least for now - it is futile.

Peace.

a reply to: AceWombat04

The problem with people having so much concentrated wealth

Capitalism makes wealth but can only trade to accumulate wealth. Wealth must be traded for wealth.

Concentration can only happen with coercive power, which is gov. The gov makes laws that discourage new competition and collects taxes that slow capital accumulation new competitors. All social immobility comes from gov controls.

a reply to: pithos

I googled it and I like it.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

No wealth concentration is a natural form of pure capitalism. Once new wealth is acquired it is reinvestited to created more wealth. As this continues the concentration of wealth continues as the wealth leverages resources. It results is positive feedback. This has been predicted by philosophers even at the very beginning of capitalism after the French Revolution.

The political aspect is a result of wealth consolidation in the creation of an oligarchy . you will notice Rockefellors, Carnegie, Vanderbilts etc aquire political power after wealth consolidation. Once an oligarchy is established the positive feedback has created a closed loop system where wealth distribution mainly benefits the oligarchs.


Thomas Pickety explains it like this:
The rate of return for owned capital (r) exceeds the overall rate of economic growth (g). Thus, families and individuals who control wealth will accumulate it at a faster rate than the economy can produce it and so will control a much larger portion of the economic pie. The rich get proportionally richer, and the poor get proportionally poorer. And unless something happens to alter the status quo, this trend will continue.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Well I do find it funny you picked a bunch of our allies as your examples who benefit from the USA's military.

All economic systems can be corrupt. Capitalist though pushes people to work harder for "themselves"

a reply to: AceWombat04

Corruption is very hard to counter in any system really, the system you mention sounds like a good one and is almost what we theoretically do even now - finding an altruistic politician or billionaire can be tough, though. If someone made an honest billion and paid their taxes and such I don't as much mind them as I do the politicians as they are literally hired by the people to represent the people. Altruism should be a required personality traits to run for any political office.

Unfortunately where power and money exist, corruption is rampant. Corporations wouldn't have the amount of power they do without owning the government, and the government wouldn't have the reach they do if they didn't have such power and friendship with the elite. It's a mutually beneficial situation and I don't see it going anywhere.

The convention of states seems promising enough. Limiting congressional and senators terms would be a good step towards getting the filth of DC out of there. Other things need to be done, however, and I'm not sure the people with good intentions would be able to make it to a high spot, or stay alive or untainted if they did.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Tell me how Switzerland, France, Germany, Norway.... Show me their evil dictators and how they are using money to kill in foreign countries, or putting all types of chemicals in their food, water, etc.

I'll wait. Show me something credible proving to me that our quality of life, in the richest nation in the world, is as high as a place like Switzerland.

Those are all capitalist countries.

a reply to: Ohanka

Exactly. Switzerland has many similarities with the US in principle and philosophy. It's also why I believe capitalism can work just fine with limited but necessary adjustments from time to time in the form of basic regulations pertaining to ethics set by concepts of liberty and justice in the constitution.

The free market is great until kids start working in coal mines or Lakes start catching fire. Then it needs adjustment and reminders of ethical obligation.

a reply to: deadlyhope

If it was true capitalism, those people would've lost their fortunes a long time ago.

a reply to: luthier

wealth concentration is a natural form of pure capitalism. Once new wealth is acquired it is reinvestited to created more wealth.

The reinvestment does not create more wealth by itself. Reinvestment creates more production. The production must still be traded to increase the wealth of the investor.

To acquire more wealth from reinvestment requires more wealth to be had in the consumer class.

Wealth accumulation requires trading wealth for wealth.

Concentration like you are assuming can only happen after confiscation and control.

What we have in the West (all of it) isn't necessary capitalism. It's a corporatocracy.

The corporate elite use their puppet governments to prop up their destructive, unsustainable oligarchy at the expense of everyone else.

It is not capitalism in it's intended form.

I am not a capitalist, but i do feel it is important to point out the differences between real capitalism, and the corporatocracy of the West.

a reply to: Semicollegiate
That is not necessarily true at all.

I can aquire assets which increase my wealth with no production value.

I can aquire land. I can trade currency. I can accumulate interest.

Also even though raw material being aquired is production it can also be used to control market value of resources by limiting supply.

a reply to: Ohanka

Absolutley. This is what I am calling an oligarchy. It is a natural progression if intervention isn't used. Even in the simplest form of cleaning up the justice system when bribes become a regular occurrence.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Capitalism is not the cause of politics.

No but it can and does influence it.

The will to power and the acceptance of subservience is the cause of political power.

Sure is but free markets don't eliminate those who have the will to power or use whatever they can to have people acquiesce.

That is where, as has been pointed out, capitalism is the road to somewhere.

Well, they said corporatism, but my point is that free market capitalism is never long lasting. All over the world throughout human history "you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours" has been in effect.