Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Wealth Inequality In America

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Sure, government is not good. It is a necessary evil and should be kept as minimal as practical, but the population as a whole and society benefit when the masses are educated rather than just the elite. 

 

And do you have any idea how much infrastructure costs? I certainly can't afford it and I'd venture a guess that not one participant on this board could pay for the infrastructure that they use. For an example, one telecommunication tower would be in the hundreds of thousands. A small sewage treatment facility would run you about $100k. Drinking water treatment would be about double that. Those are little things. A two lane paved road is going to be hundreds of thousands per mile. Highway will be close to a million per mile.  Water distribution about the same. Sewer collection too. Bridges and dams aren't cheap, but I don't have numbers on them. And what about satellites? You really think some individual or group would pay for those, or would you prefer we keep using the crumbling systems in place now until we have reverted to the dark ages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Capitalism, left unchecked, will always revert to feudalism in the long run.

 

Again I don't follow the logic here.

What do you mean left unchecked?

 

 

 

Those who have wealth can easily gain more and those who have little easily lose what they have.

 

Not necessarily.  Look at some  of the big companies of the past.

For example, Blockbuster and other video rental companies.

They were wealthy businesses and now they're out of business.

This is how capitalism works.... one generation one group of people are wealthy, another generation another group of people become wealthy

it's a natural cyclical flow when there is no violence used to disrupt it

 

 

So in this "voluntary" arrangement, a person who can not afford to build a road can not use it? A person who can not hire private security guards is not entitled to protection from crime, and a poor person has no access to schools or libraries to gain the needed knowledge to lift themselves out of poverty?

 

I envision "voluntary" tax being more voluntary than that.

 

Tell me, apart from paying taxes, what have YOU done recently in helping the poor?

Please be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Again I don't follow the logic here.

What do you mean left unchecked?

 

 

 

Not necessarily.  Look at some  of the big companies of the past.

For example, Blockbuster and other video rental companies.

They were wealthy businesses and now they're out of business.

This is how capitalism works.... one generation one group of people are wealthy, another generation another group of people become wealthy

it's a natural cyclical flow when there is no violence used to disrupt it

 

 

Tell me, apart from paying taxes, what have YOU done recently in helping the poor?

Please be honest.

By unchecked, I mean in its pure form. Not with elements of socialism.

 

Are the owners of Blockbuster poor now? I honestly have no idea, but find it highly unlikely. Corporations are not people.

 

Until very recently, I was poor. Very poor by American standards, but not too bad by third world standards.  I had food to eat, if nothing else, and my children went to school. What I have done to help my fellow man since changing my own situation is between me and my Creator. If everyone practiced charity as they could and should, the world would be a much better place. And charity is not limited to giving money, nor is it limited by a person's economic or social status. 

 

Charity or not, the society as a whole is still better off with infrastructure and access to education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sure, government is not good. It is a necessary evil and should be kept as minimal as practical, ...

 

as Muslims, it is our duty to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil

especially on a shia forum

 

 

but the population as a whole and society benefit when the masses are educated rather than just the elite. 

 

well today the vast majority are 'educated' holding A, B, C, D... degrees

why then do we have a trade deficit (importing more than exporting)?

why is our national debt keep going up?

why are we losing our industrial base to other nations, even though we pay more taxes for education?

 

 

 

And do you have any idea how much infrastructure costs? I certainly can't afford it and I'd venture a guess that not one participant on this board could pay for the infrastructure that they use. 

For an example, one telecommunication tower would be in the hundreds of thousands. A small sewage treatment facility would run you about $100k. Drinking water treatment would be about double that. Those are little things. A two lane paved road is going to be hundreds of thousands per mile. Highway will be close to a million per mile.  Water distribution about the same. Sewer collection too. Bridges and dams aren't cheap, but I don't have numbers on them. And what about satellites? You really think some individual or group would pay for those, or would you prefer we keep using the crumbling systems in place now until we have reverted to the dark ages?

 

You talk exactly like the slave owners in the 1800s.

 

When people came to them and said, 'hey it's wrong to force these slaves to pick cotton'.

They would respond, 'then how would the cotton be picked without them?'.

 

Why don't you understand the ethics of the situation?

 

***

Secondly you have this assumption that roads are the optimal solution to transport.

 

How do you know this?

 

Right now it's the optimal solution because it's 'free'.

 

But otherwise how do we know that some smart entrepreneur would be able to build an affordable helicopter/hover-car eliminating the need for roads entirely?

 

***

 

Furthermore, I suggest you study the history of transportation. 

For example NY Subway was first financed by the private sector.

There were also private-financed roads before Gov got involved in that business.  It was all done voluntarily, through business.

 

For example, in a free market, car insurance businesses, car manufacturers, trucking businesses, shipping businesses, malls, uptown/downtown businesses, gas stations, oil businesses...etc. all have a direct financial incentive to invest in nicely paved roads/highways.  They can draw up contracts with one another to collectively finance such ventures.  They can place a GPS/electronic toll to keep the traffic low, which means less pollution on the environment.  Or they can have all investors/clients in a database, and those who are not in it, would be charged extra when they go shopping in businesses that are connected to that road.

 

It can also be payed for by charity from one's neighborhood who had enough of having mud splash all over their lawn when the rain pours on the dirt road in front of their home. 

 

So who knows how it is payed, but it is certainly a lot more moral than what we have today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

By unchecked, I mean in its pure form. Not with elements of socialism.

 

Are the owners of Blockbuster poor now? I honestly have no idea, but find it highly unlikely. Corporations are not people.

 

Until very recently, I was poor. Very poor by American standards, but not too bad by third world standards.  I had food to eat, if nothing else, and my children went to school. What I have done to help my fellow man since changing my own situation is between me and my Creator. If everyone practiced charity as they could and should, the world would be a much better place. And charity is not limited to giving money, nor is it limited by a person's economic or social status. 

 

Charity or not, the society as a whole is still better off with infrastructure and access to education.

 

charity is between me and my creator but everyone else must be forced to be charitable and i will decide what the correct amount of forced "charity" shall be....

thats not hypocritical at all

 

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else"-Frederic Bastiat

Edited by godzapostle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

By unchecked, I mean in its pure form. Not with elements of socialism.

 

Are the owners of Blockbuster poor now? I honestly have no idea, but find it highly unlikely. Corporations are not people.

 

Until very recently, I was poor. Very poor by American standards, but not too bad by third world standards.  I had food to eat, if nothing else, and my children went to school. 

What I have done to help my fellow man since changing my own situation is between me and my Creator. If everyone practiced charity as they could and should, the world would be a much better place. And charity is not limited to giving money, nor is it limited by a person's economic or social status. 

 

Charity or not, the society as a whole is still better off with infrastructure and access to education.

 

Okay great, so in a free-market, you get to save money/time from not paying taxes and so you can do more of whatever you do that is between you and our Creator, and others can participate more in charity and so the poor would be taken care of.

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Why don't you understand the ethics of the situation?

 

please forgive me for asking such a question...

I sometimes get a bit too aggressive when debating these topics.

 

What I was trying to say, is that there is an ethical dilemma in today's approach in paying for infrastructure and other public services.

 

sorry again

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean charge people directly to build roads, water lines, sewers? Then there can be no growth because there will be nobody to bill until after the community has grown around the infrastructure. I would like to see the populace having more choice in where their money goes, but it is impractical and naieve to think that private developers can or will subsidize community infrastructure in its entirety. The more developers are required to provide, the more inaccessible development becomes.

No, I mean the central bank can print money and the government can allocate resources with this money. How would this not work if the central bank is nationalised? If the bank was in state possession, would there even be a need to reduce a budget deficit? Would a budget deficit even exist in the first place?

I'm in the process of learning economics, so I don't fully understand a lot about how all this practically works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'm in the process of learning economics, so I don't fully understand a lot about how all this practically works.

I am also not an expert on economics. My area of expertise is private land development.

please forgive me for asking such a question...

I sometimes get a bit too aggressive when debating these topics.

What I was trying to say, is that there is an ethical dilemma in today's approach in paying for infrastructure and other public services.

sorry again

No offense taken. I understand how it can be frustrating to try to communicate sometimes.

Yes, I acknowledge that there is inherent unfairness in taxation for government funding of services. The American government is terribly inefficient and wasteful too. I'd like to see less bureaucracy and the population having more control over how our money is used.

But to me it seems cruel and backwards to restrict access to services. If people actually cared about other humans enough, if enough charity were given, it wouldn't be necessary to tax to provide these services, but people are human. They give when they must or when they feel like it, and don't think about it the rest of the time. There are enough resources in the universe that nobody should starve or go without water.

charity is between me and my creator but everyone else must be forced to be charitable and i will decide what the correct amount of forced "charity" shall be....

thats not hypocritical at all

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else"-Frederic Bastiat

Taxation and government distribution of services happens when charity isn't enough.

Government is the lesser evil when compared to anarchy.

well today the vast majority are 'educated' holding A, B, C, D... degrees

why then do we have a trade deficit (importing more than exporting)?

why is our national debt keep going up?

why are we losing our industrial base to other nations, even though we pay more taxes for education?

You talk exactly like the slave owners in the 1800s.

When people came to them and said, 'hey it's wrong to force these slaves to pick cotton'.

They would respond, 'then how would the cotton be picked without them?'.

Why don't you understand the ethics of the situation?

***

Secondly you have this assumption that roads are the optimal solution to transport.

How do you know this?

Right now it's the optimal solution because it's 'free'.

But otherwise how do we know that some smart entrepreneur would be able to build an affordable helicopter/hover-car eliminating the need for roads entirely?

***

Furthermore, I suggest you study the history of transportation.

The problem is that it is the wrong education. People are trained to do a set of tasks, not to think.

We certainly do need changes to existing transportation, but changing the whole setup is way more expensive than maintaining what we have. Helicopters sound too dangerous but there must be better ways we haven't thought of yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

NO. private tyranny? exploitations of labour?

 

if somebody is offering you a product at the most competitive price and you voluntarily hand offer something in exchange for it then that is private tyranny?

 

if an employer is offering a wage that is higher than all his competitors and the workers choose to work for him then that is worker explotation?

 

do you even logic?

 

just look at the example of singapore. they have very little regulations of their financial system, no minimum wage laws and some of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. the GDP per capita in singapore is higher than in the US and median household income is $5800 and growing faster than in the US.

 

where are the exploited workers? why arent they being paid pennies a day by those greedy capitalists since there is no government mandated minimum wage? why arent there monopolies popping up all over singapore?

 

are you ignorant or just dumb?

 

Your an idiot. A capitalist society functioning without exploitation of labour is like saying a human being can do so without a nervous system.  A capitalist by definition, will always take more from its labour force in value than it gives back in wages, otherwise there is no point in him hiring workers in the first place.  Its inherently exploitive, the workers are never paid what they actually deserve, as determined through the sheer output value of their labour.  Not to mention the workers are completely alienated from their own labour, in that they do not own it, totally demeaning to anyone who has an ounce of self respect.  Judging from your nonsensical replies, you would probably suggest that its all fair and dandy since workers "voluntarily" bind themselves to contractual work agreements, but that is pure nonsense, workers do not have a choice in that respect.  An ordinary person, with hardly any savings of his own, just to feed himself and his family in a capitalist society, has no choice but to rent himself to a capitalist and enter into exploitive employment agreements. The system is inherently immoral and corrupt, even the most ardent supporters of capitalism recognize this fact, but defend the system based on its dynamic growth potential and ability to generate wealth.  Wage slavery is still slavery for most of us, but since you love to 'logic', some arbitrary completely incomprehensible form of market efficiency probably = the moral standard we all should aspire to for morons like you.

 

As far as Singapore is concerned, a country of barely 5 and a half million people, who are you trying to fool? Its more socialist than Canada for gods sake, do you realize the level of government involvement in business? Temasek holdings with a portfolio of like $200 billion, owned by the government, who's chairman and CEO are the damn PM and his wife has massive majority investments in some of the biggest companies in that country, in virtually every crucial sector.  Who is responsible for housing? Do 80% of people in Singapore live on their dear to heart privately owned homes or publicly owned and developed ones? What about health care? What about education and transport?  Who own's most of the land in Singapore? Even highly dynamic sectors of the economy have significant investment from government owned companies.  Who the hell needs regulation and soaring corporate taxes when the government can literally control key private corporations through direct investment in the first place? Not to mention that almost a quarter of the workforce is comprised of foreign workers who face all kinds of discrimination among a host of other problems.  Either way you manage to twist this, its a mixed economy like any other and not some massively exploitive capitalist utopia weirdoes like you fetishize about. 

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Furthermore, I suggest you study the history of transportation. 

For example NY Subway was first financed by the private sector.

There were also private-financed roads before Gov got involved in that business.  It was all done voluntarily, through business.

 

For example, in a free market, car insurance businesses, car manufacturers, trucking businesses, shipping businesses, malls, uptown/downtown businesses, gas stations, oil businesses...etc. all have a direct financial incentive to invest in nicely paved roads/highways.  They can draw up contracts with one another to collectively finance such ventures.  They can place a GPS/electronic toll to keep the traffic low, which means less pollution on the environment.  Or they can have all investors/clients in a database, and those who are not in it, would be charged extra when they go shopping in businesses that are connected to that road.

 

It can also be payed for by charity from one's neighborhood who had enough of having mud splash all over their lawn when the rain pours on the dirt road in front of their home. 

 

So who knows how it is payed, but it is certainly a lot more moral than what we have today.

 

Why NY?  Why don't you look at some of the best transit and transportation systems in the world, built through public funding?

 

You would be wrong to assume that private enterprise has an interest in building better transportation systems for public benefit, their interest is plain and simple: maximizing short term gain.  If short term gain means a beneficial service to people, then so be it, if not, they will still try to ram the products down consumers throats through propaganda (advertising), which is why you see models in bikinis in highly informative car commercials.  If private firms can make more money pumping out slightly varied auto-mobiles than say building a mass transit system which would technically speaking be a lot more environmentally friendly, efficient for the public, cause less accidents and fatalities, employ millions of people across the US, but yield lower profits, guess which one they will choose?  Guess why the US does not have even a semi decent mass transportation system?  Despite being the richest country in the world? A mass transportation system, despite all its obvious countless benefits means less cars on the road, and fewer sales for car manufacturers, and subsequently lower profits.  You can figure it out.

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Oh look, what's in the news, capitalist Singapore where a bunch of millionaires treat foreign workers (cheap labour), without whom the economy would virtually collapse so well.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-singapore-riots-workers-idUSBRE9B908G20131210

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Oh look, what's in the news, capitalist Singapore where a bunch of millionaires treat foreign workers (cheap labour), without whom the economy would virtually collapse so well.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-singapore-riots-workers-idUSBRE9B908G20131210

 

Singapore is NOT a capitalist country

not only do they have so many restrictions in the market

 

but the currency they use is controlled by the public sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Singapore is NOT a capitalist country

not only do they have so many restrictions in the market

 

but the currency they use is controlled by the public sector.

 

I know that, you didn't bother to read my previous post, anyway, how are your private sector mass transit plans coming along?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Why NY?  Why don't you look at some of the best transit and transportation systems in the world, built through public funding?

 

I was giving an example how there was privately-financed transportation infrastructure prior to the gov getting involved.

 

What do you mean by public funding?

 

Where does this funding comes from and how do they get it?

 

You would be wrong to assume that private enterprise has an interest in building better transportation systems for public benefit,

 

Private businesses have to worry about competition, negative publicity and attracting/keeping customers or they go out of business.

They will do the best they can to satisfy customers at the fairest price.

 

 

 

their interest is plain and simple: maximizing short term gain.

 

Not necessarily.  There was a time in when most businesses were focused for the long term.

 

It just seems like this today, because the currency is fiat, and is being inflated  - ie. it devalues as time goes....because wallstreet is getting bailouts.

As a result business will do whatever they can to make money fast in the short term.  But this is just a natural reaction.

 

 

 If short term gain means a beneficial service to people, then so be it, if not, they will still try to ram the products down consumers throats through propaganda (advertising), which is why you see models in bikinis in highly informative car commercials.  If private firms can make more money pumping out slightly varied auto-mobiles than say building a mass transit system which would technically speaking be a lot more environmentally friendly, efficient for the public, cause less accidents and fatalities, employ millions of people across the US, but yield lower profits, guess which one they will choose? 

 

If a business is behaving badly, then customers are free to not purchase their goods and services.

 

 

Guess why the US does not have even a semi decent mass transportation system?  Despite being the richest country in the world?

 

It is NOT the richest country in the world.  It is the poorest, most indebted nation in the world.

The only reason it appears the opposite, is because

chineese, wahabbis, japanese, ...etc. are lending massive amount of money to them on the basis that the wealth of the unborn American children of future generations is used as collateral

I know that, you didn't bother to read my previous post, anyway, how are your private sector mass transit plans coming along?

 

grayhound, delta, ...etc. these aren't mass transit businesses?

 

Now the reason why you don't see more of these private sector mass transit services

 

is because they can't compete with the public sector.

 

The public sector has an unfair advantage, because they can print money to finance their operation

and the private sector can't unless they can find a way to provide better service and be profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
 

Not necessarily.  There was a time in when most businesses were focused for the long term.

 

Okay, so how long is a business supposed to run at a loss in a competitive environment before it shuts down, before even coming close to accomplishing its long term goals?

 

 

It is NOT the richest country in the world.  It is the poorest, most indebted nation in the world.

The only reason it appears the opposite, is because

chineese, wahabbis, japanese, ...etc. are lending massive amount of money to them on the basis that the wealth of the unborn American children of future generations is used as collateral

 

It has overwhelmingly been the richest country in the world post the second world war.  Currently, I am not even talking about the America state, the majority of wealth in US is concentrated in private hands, so yes, its plenty wealthy.

 

 

grayhound, delta, ...etc. these aren't mass transit businesses?

 

Now the reason why you don't see more of these private sector mass transit services

 

is because they can't compete with the public sector.

 

The public sector has an unfair advantage, because they can print money to finance their operation

and the private sector can't unless they can find a way to provide better service and be profitable.

 

 

You are going to compare grayhound which is far from a marvel of achievement to the kinds of mass transportation high speed rails in Europe and Japan etc?

 

And no, its not that they cannot compete with the public sector, its because they are purely interested in profit, while the public sector doesn't have to be.  Technically speaking, the public sector can put public interest well ahead of profit, this is virtually impossible in a privatized market system by definition.

 

You can't shake yourself out of your ideological shackles, you have a hard time digesting a very simple fact: the profit motive and the market is not the solution to all economic problems in society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Okay, so how long is a business supposed to run at a loss in a competitive environment before it shuts down, before even coming close to accomplishing its long term goals?

 

Look at Google as an example...

 

when they started, they provided their search engine to everyone for free and lived off the money their first investors provided to them

as they got more 'customers'

then they started to go into the ads business, and they use the revenues generated from that to continue funding their operations and pay back the original investors

 

 

 

It has overwhelmingly been the richest country in the world post the second world war.  Currently, I am not even talking about the America state, the majority of wealth in US is concentrated in private hands, so yes, its plenty wealthy.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  You original argument was that US is the wealthiest nation in the world

and I responded to that by saying that the country as a whole is in trillion dollars of debt

so their net worth is less than other nations

 

 

You are going to compare grayhound which is far from a marvel of achievement to the kinds of mass transportation high speed rails in Europe and Japan etc?

 

You asked a question, "how private sector mass transit plans coming along", and I gave two examples of private mass transit businesses that are operating today.

 

What does high speed rail have to do with the original argument? 

 

 

And no, its not that they cannot compete with the public sector, its because they are purely interested in profit, while the public sector doesn't have to be.  Technically speaking, the public sector can put public interest well ahead of profit, this is virtually impossible in a privatized market system by definition.

 

they don't have to be, because they have a monopoly on violence and they take money from productive individuals at the barrel of the gun whenever they want to

do you see the immorality of the situation?

 

 

You can't shake yourself out of your ideological shackles, you have a hard time digesting a very simple fact: the profit motive and the market is not the solution to all economic problems in society.

 

What?

 

The profit motive is necessary for an economy to function.  If this didn't exist, then hardly NO ONE would start a business.  What's the point of running a business if you can't get a cent out of it?

 

Free market capitalism is currently the most logical and most moral approach to make an economy grow.

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Maybe capitalism is the best way to grow an economy, but it is inhumane. Is the economy more important than humanity?

 

elaborate what is inhumane about it

 

Which of the following is inhumane to you?

 

a society that muta king suggest where you have the gov

coerce certain individuals to give up their wealth so it can go to others

in order to achieve a 'greater good' for society

 

or a free-market capitalistic economy where people can choose to use their wealth however they want to and no one

else can interfere in their business

 

 

Don't just look at the consequences of an approach and make a judgement.

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

A humane  society would be the one proscribed by Islam, in which those who have more than they need use their wealth to help the poor to become self sufficient so they can lift themselves out of poverty. But since most people who are in a position to help others choose not to, taxes are collected and used to fund inefficient and unfair welfare programs, among other things.

 

You would let people starve? I can't imagine doing that. Even when my family was weeks from homelessness, without heat, without running water, infested with rats, if a person came to my door and said they were hungry I would share our food with them. And in the neighborhood where I lived it happened all the time. It blows my mind that some people can stand by and let a fellow human die, especially for something as transient and impersonal as money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

A humane  society would be the one proscribed by Islam, in which those who have more than they need use their wealth to help the poor to become self sufficient so they can lift themselves out of poverty. But since most people who are in a position to help others choose not to, taxes are collected and used to fund inefficient and unfair welfare programs, among other things.

 

So let me ask you, which economic approach is better

 

a) where the gov takes money from these individuals at the barell of the gun to achieve this goal, a large amount of it going to the administrators/buearcrats

 

OR

 

b  ) where individuals have complete ownership of their money, and have the freedom how to help the poor how ever way they want

either through charity

or to start businesses and hire many of these poor individuals and give them a better life

 

 

 

 

You would let people starve?

 

 

What does this have to do with me?

I'm debating about the morality of the system that muta king is advocating.

 

 

I can't imagine doing that. Even when my family was weeks from homelessness, without heat, without running water, infested with rats, if a person came to my door and said they were hungry I would share our food with them. And in the neighborhood where I lived it happened all the time. It blows my mind that some people can stand by and let a fellow human die, especially for something as transient and impersonal as money.

 

Well what does this have to do with capitalism?

 

First of all, the currency you use is controlled completely by the public sector, and it is the public sector's decision to give a complete monopoly of its issuance to one organization that does nothing but siphon wealth from the general population (by printing IOUs or borrow it from chineese, wahabies, ...etc. and use the labor of the unborn future generation as collateral) and then hand it out to bankers in wallstreet who can either use it to speculate in the stock market, lend it out and charge high interest on it or give out big salaries/bonuses to their employees many of which goes directly to the service sector where it gets consumed rather than invested in productive business.

 

Secondly many of the people in your neighborhood can't get jobs, because either the local employers have to devot a large percentage of their income toward taxes, or they have to pay a lot of fees to comply with gov-enforced regulations (lawyers, accountants, licensing ..etc), or they have to save it as prices of their supplies keep going up because of inflation.  

 

Thridly your neighbors can't afford to save money because the banks savings account gives ~1% because that is what publicly-elected official says so, when in reality it should be at least 10% to compensate for inflation.

 

Finally many of your neighbors received poor eduction from their local public schools, because that is the only education that was available to them because the gov has attained a virtual monopoly in the education sector by charging nothing, but financing the operation through printing money, or borrowing it from the Chinese, Wahhabis and the labor of the future generation is used as collateral or through taxes.

 

***

 

Here's the thing about the rich and taxes.

 

When the general public demands the rich be taxed, and the laws are implement... which the rich initially feel the pinch.

They will quickly devout a lot of resources in buying up politicians so they can be exempt or they get special favors which would get them back their money.

As a result the tax burden is subsequently placed on the small/medium business, many of which simply can't afford to lobby or buy up politicians.  So they're forced to downsize their workforce, or raise their prices, and this is where the poverty increases.

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

elaborate what is inhumane about it

 

Which of the following is inhumane to you?

 

a society that muta king suggest where you have the gov

coerce certain individuals to give up their wealth so it can go to others

in order to achieve a 'greater good' for society

 

or a free-market capitalistic economy where people can choose to use their wealth however they want to and no one

else can interfere in their business

 

You don't even answer the damn questions and keep rambling on about your free market fantasies.  I just told you how a capitalist society by definition exploits labour to generate wealth, it all just flies over your head.

So let me ask you, which economic approach is better

 

a) where the gov takes money from these individuals at the barell of the gun to achieve this goal, a large amount of it going to the administrators/buearcrats

 

OR

 

b  ) where individuals have complete ownership of their money, and have the freedom how to help the poor how ever way they want

either through charity

or to start businesses and hire many of these poor individuals and give them a better life

 

What does this have to do with me?

I'm debating about the morality of the system that muta king is advocating.

 

You keep missing the point, there are TON's of alternatives to markets, it doesn't have to be a highly centralized state which simply taxes people to death and spends money inefficient ways, but that seems to be the only alternative to capitalism in your limited world view, it's not.

 

I haven't even advocated a system in this thread, that's what you are doing, a highly exploitive and immoral system at that, thankfully I am not as rigidly ideological as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You don't even answer the damn questions and keep rambling on about your free market fantasies.  I just told you how a capitalist society by definition exploits labour to generate wealth, it all just flies over your head.

 

What exactly do you mean 'a capitalist society by definition exploits labor to generate wealth'?

 

Please give a logical step by step argument why this is the case.  Where exactly does the exploitation occur?  Give me an example.

 

 

 

You keep missing the point, there are TON's of alternatives to markets, it doesn't have to be a highly centralized state which simply taxes people to death and spends money inefficient ways, but that seems to be the only alternative to capitalism in your limited world view, it's not.

 

all those alternatives consists of some law that makes it acceptable to take wealth from the private sector

 

for example in your socialist utopia

 

How exactly is a public sector mass transit service going to be built?  Where is the money going to come from to finance it?

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What exactly do you mean 'a capitalist society by definition exploits labor to generate wealth'?

 

Please give a logical step by step argument why this is the case.  Where exactly does the exploitation occur?  Give me an example.

 

 

 

all those alternatives consists of some law that makes it acceptable to take wealth from the private sector

 

for example in your socialist utopia

 

How exactly is a public sector mass transit service going to be built?  Where is the money going to come from to finance it?

 

I would recommend you watch the following set of 4 lectures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wkO3qsZY_U , hopefully it will benefit you, even though I am not a Marxist, his critical scholarship on capitalism has no parallel, he was a brilliant student of capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You don't even answer the damn questions and keep rambling on about your free market fantasies.  I just told you how a capitalist society by definition exploits labour to generate wealth, it all just flies over your head.

 

You keep missing the point, there are TON's of alternatives to markets, it doesn't have to be a highly centralized state which simply taxes people to death and spends money inefficient ways, but that seems to be the only alternative to capitalism in your limited world view, it's not.

 

I haven't even advocated a system in this thread, that's what you are doing, a highly exploitive and immoral system at that, thankfully I am not as rigidly ideological as you.

 

When a worker accepts a job with an employer, he does so because the employer is offering the best deal he can get. The "transaction" between them is voluntary and both the employer and the worker believe they are benefiting from the partnership. If the worker was being exploted or felt he could do better on his own or with another employer then he would take the job with another firm or start his own business. Nobody is forcing him to come to work, nobody is forcing him provide his labour (in fact, you would only see forced labour in a marxist society)

 

And why does someone have to be "exploited"? Are you being exploited every time your purchase food from a grocer?

You feel that you are benefiting from the purchase of that food item because it keeps you alive and the seller feels he is benefiting from selling that food item to you because the price he sells you the food is above what it cost him to produce that item. You each benefit, there is no fixed pie.

But if you insist that any transaction is exploitive then who is being exploited in this case?

 

And whats wrong with the owner of the firm making a profit?

Why do you think people start a business in the first place?

Why do people make investments in capital and increase the size of their labour force?

 

If workers want a piece of the profits of a firm then how about the losses? How about the next time a firm loses money they can delay paying their workers or send them a smaller check than usual?

Surely you would be in favour of this as well?

 

 

Seems like you are spending a bit too much time prowling for mutah partners and not enough time thinking critically.

 

Edited by godzapostle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I would recommend you watch the following set of 4 lectures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wkO3qsZY_U , hopefully it will benefit you, even though I am not a Marxist, his critical scholarship on capitalism has no parallel, he was a brilliant student of capitalism.

 

Okay, suppose you want to implement your Marxist society

 

How are you going to ban profits?

 

Give us a systematic and logical approach to convince business owners to not have profits.

 

Secondly tell us how you'd go about compensating for the lawsuit risks that the business owner has to deal with?

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

I would recommend you watch the following set of 4 lectures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wkO3qsZY_U , hopefully it will benefit you, even though I am not a Marxist, his critical scholarship on capitalism has no parallel, he was a brilliant student of capitalism.

 

seems like your marxist/share-profits theories didn't work with Chrysler

 

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/general/fiat-buying-remaining-chrysler-stake-from-union-for-3-65b-128244

 

Union workers didn't want a share of the profits!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...