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

  • Advanced Member

This is unfortunately not just an American trend but a global trend.

 

It is related to the global hegemony of capitalism. Even countries who culturally are anti-imperialistic and they support social justice and all that... they still have widening wealth disparity, themselves.

 

The neo-liberal economic model has become undisputed; it is the global “default.” The remaining communist countries have -- since the fall of communism, adopted radical economic reforms (like China and Vietnam). Even the less willing Cuba and North Korea have accepted limited reforms. Likewise, Iran, though it was never communist, once had an autarkic, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist economy, which has undergone radical reforms since the 2004 constitutional amendments. Since the breakup of the USSR till today, Russia has been implementing a market economy, though Putin has nominally fought against the Yeltsin-era oligarchy.

 

Thus, we see that even countries staunchly opposed to American and Western European global hegemony, have adopted the capitalistic model without question. Though certain events -- such as the rising power of the BRICS countries, the USA-Iran rapprochement, and the fact that the United States is retreating from its initial demands for Bashar al-Assad’s ouster in Syria -- indicate an end to the unipolar world, the economic system of the world has never been more unitary. This homogenization of economic thinking has led to three undesirable consequences:

 

1) Imperviousness to poverty -- Social justice is no longer a priority or even a consideration. The very goal of economics is segregated from the principle of public welfare.

 

2) Dissolution of national distinctions (but in a bad way) -- Divisions between countries have become less relevant, while stratification within countries rapidly expands.

 

3) Monopolization of power -- Though ideologues like Fukuyama once romanticized about capitalism and democracy going hand-in-hand, we find that the recent transformations has led to greater power being in the hands of fewer people.

 

Brazil, China, and South Africa -- three fifths of the BRICS -- are consistently among the countries with the greatest income disparity as per the GINI index. India, while it does not rank among the worst on the GINI, continues to have one of the world’s poorest populations, with its average per capita daily energy intake at 2300 calories (not much higher than the minimum requirement). These economies are all praised as rising world economies, and yet the problem of poverty persists and is a contagion. Furthermore, it is not among the top priorities of world leaders to address it.

 

Mexico, a new darling of foreign investment -- which has gotten attention in the New York Times and other major American news outlets for being an emerging economic power, also ranks poorly on the GINI index. The continued widespread poverty in the country did not stop President Enrique Peña Nieto from declaring that "the stars are aligning" for Mexico.

 

When evaluating the strength of an economy, public welfare no longer is a factor given its due consideration. Instead, there is "economic freedom," or openness to foreign investment, GDP growth, and other such irrelevant nonsense. Privatization is sought for its own sake, and its benefits do not necessarily reach the people at large and in fact is mostly at their expense.

Salaam,

Thank you for the information, very insightful.

I have a few thoughts/questions. But I will post them in a few days after finals. inshallah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This is unfortunately not just an American trend but a global trend.

 

It is related to the global hegemony of capitalism. Even countries who culturally are anti-imperialistic and they support social justice and all that... they still have widening wealth disparity, themselves.

 

The neo-liberal economic model has become undisputed; it is the global “default.” The remaining communist countries have -- since the fall of communism, adopted radical economic reforms (like China and Vietnam). Even the less willing Cuba and North Korea have accepted limited reforms. Likewise, Iran, though it was never communist, once had an autarkic, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist economy, which has undergone radical reforms since the 2004 constitutional amendments. Since the breakup of the USSR till today, Russia has been implementing a market economy, though Putin has nominally fought against the Yeltsin-era oligarchy.

 

Thus, we see that even countries staunchly opposed to American and Western European global hegemony, have adopted the capitalistic model without question. Though certain events -- such as the rising power of the BRICS countries, the USA-Iran rapprochement, and the fact that the United States is retreating from its initial demands for Bashar al-Assad’s ouster in Syria -- indicate an end to the unipolar world, the economic system of the world has never been more unitary. This homogenization of economic thinking has led to three undesirable consequences:

 

1) Imperviousness to poverty -- Social justice is no longer a priority or even a consideration. The very goal of economics is segregated from the principle of public welfare.

 

2) Dissolution of national distinctions (but in a bad way) -- Divisions between countries have become less relevant, while stratification within countries rapidly expands.

 

3) Monopolization of power -- Though ideologues like Fukuyama once romanticized about capitalism and democracy going hand-in-hand, we find that the recent transformations has led to greater power being in the hands of fewer people.

 

Brazil, China, and South Africa -- three fifths of the BRICS -- are consistently among the countries with the greatest income disparity as per the GINI index. India, while it does not rank among the worst on the GINI, continues to have one of the world’s poorest populations, with its average per capita daily energy intake at 2300 calories (not much higher than the minimum requirement). These economies are all praised as rising world economies, and yet the problem of poverty persists and is a contagion. Furthermore, it is not among the top priorities of world leaders to address it.

 

Mexico, a new darling of foreign investment -- which has gotten attention in the New York Times and other major American news outlets for being an emerging economic power, also ranks poorly on the GINI index. The continued widespread poverty in the country did not stop President Enrique Peña Nieto from declaring that "the stars are aligning" for Mexico.

 

When evaluating the strength of an economy, public welfare no longer is a factor given its due consideration. Instead, there is "economic freedom," or openness to foreign investment, GDP growth, and other such irrelevant nonsense. Privatization is sought for its own sake, and its benefits do not necessarily reach the people at large and in fact is mostly at their expense.

 

uhh what?

 

 

The Federal Reserve, rigged interest rates, fiat paper currency, mandates, welfare state, subsidies, public-private partnerships, collectivized risk, regulations designed to create barriers to entry, government guarantees, massive entitlements etc. are not consistent with free markets or capitalism.

 

this is the capitalist hegemony you speak of?                                                          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

uhh what?

 

 

The Federal Reserve, rigged interest rates, fiat paper currency, mandates, welfare state, subsidies, public-private partnerships, collectivized risk, regulations designed to create barriers to entry, government guarantees, massive entitlements etc. are not consistent with free markets or capitalism.

 

this is the capitalist hegemony you speak of?                                                          

 

OK, you won. The US is a socialist state. Bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

OK, you won. The US is a socialist state. Bye.

 

it boggles my mind that so many shias are socialist or downright communist and think there is nothing unislamic about it

 

where does it say in islamic law that you are entitled to a house? that the government can take money from someone else and provide you with medical care? that the government can take from someone else and provide you with a discount on gasoline?

where does it say that the government has to bail you out if you make a bad loan or if you deposited your money with the wrong bank?

where does it say that the government owns all property be default? that it has a greater right to spend your money than you do?

 

 

get this filthy ideology out of this forum.

Edited by godzapostle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

it boggles my mind that so many shias are socialist or downright communist and think there is nothing unislamic about it

 

where does it say in islamic law that you are entitled to a house? that the government can take money from someone else and provide you with medical care? that the government can take from someone else and provide you with a discount on gasoline?

where does it say that the government has to bail you out if you make a bad loan or if you deposited your money with the wrong bank?

 

get this filthy ideology out of this forum.

 

What you are saying is a caricature.

 

It's laughable to prop up the threat of socialism after socialism has already lost.

 

It's over. Get over it. Stop inventing threats.

 

You refer to taxation as "taking money from someone else." There are taxes in Islam. It's not theft. It's a legitimate practice.

 

Social justice is not a filthy ideology. It is a universal principle. Supporting social justice and its implementation is not a subscription to the ideals of any socialist or communist theorist; it is simply a fitri response to injustice.

 

Get out of your fantasy world.

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What you are saying is a caricature.

 

And it's laughable to prop up the threat of socialism after socialism has already lost.

 

It's over. Get over it. Stop inventing threats.

 

You refer to taxation as "taking money from someone else." There are taxes in Islam. It's not theft. It's a legitimate practice.

 

Social justice is not a filthy ideology. It is a universal principle. Supporting social justice and its implementation is not a subscription to the ideals of any socialist or communist theorist; it is simply a fitri response to injustice.

 

Get out of your fantasy world.

 

if by losing you mean becoming the dominant economic system of the majority of countries then i suppose its been utterly destroyed.

 

and define social justice?

Edited by godzapostle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

if by losing you mean becoming the dominant economic system of the majority of countries then i suppose its been utterly destroyed.

 

and define social justice?

 

Socialism is the dominant economic system of the majority of countries in the world? Explain please.

 

 

 

While you answer that, here is some food for thought.

 

And I know a lot of nonsense people dismiss the opinions of some scholars on this matter, along the same lines of your comments in this thread. ("Communism blah blah welfare cheats blah blah laziness blah blah")

 

But Imam Khomeini wasn't just a critic of socialism. He was a staunch, stiff, harsh critic of socialism. This is evident even in a cursory look at his speeches and writings. He was perhaps more critical than any of the other revolutionary ulama.

 

In the 1960s, Mohammad Reza Shah implemented something called the "White Revolution." It was a plan that encompassed many facets of society and economy. One of these policies was intended to pacify the dissatisfied rural population: the land reform. I won't go into too much detail because it is not relevant to this discussion, but essentially it was an attempt to break up the tenant-farming system. It did not mirror the land reforms of China or the DPRK or other socialist countries, in that it involved actual purchases: the government purchased the land from the land holders, and then resold these lands to the tenant-farmers at favorable loans. Long story short, it failed. It took a failing agricultural system and made it even more ineffectual. It was unpopular amongst... everyone. The land holders didn't like it, and the farmers didn't like it.

 

Whatever. That's not important for this discussion. What is important is that a reporter asked Imam Khomeini about this, on the eve of the revolution. And guess what he said? Imam asserted that the aim of the land reforms was in fact to create markets for foreign countries. He also proposed his own land reform, which he says would benefit the farmers rather than capital-holders. When asked by the interviewer if, when he takes power, he will return the White Revolution lands to their original owners, he states that because many of these landowners acted in violation of Islamic law (with respect to property), he would not give these lands back but distribute them based on need.

 

How about that, jack?

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Socialism is the dominant economic system of the majority of countries in the world? Explain please.

 

 

 

While you answer that, here is some food for thought.

 

And I know a lot of nonsense people dismiss the opinions of some scholars on this matter, along the same lines of your comments in this thread. ("Communism blah blah welfare cheats blah blah laziness blah blah")

 

But Imam Khomeini wasn't just a critic of socialism. He was a staunch, stiff, harsh critic of socialism. This is evident even in a cursory look at his speeches and writings. He was perhaps more critical than any of the other revolutionary ulama.

 

In the 1960s, Mohammad Reza Shah implemented something called the "White Revolution." It was a plan that encompassed many facets of society and economy. One of these policies was intended to pacify the dissatisfied rural population: the land reform. I won't go into too much detail because it is not relevant to this discussion, but essentially it was an attempt to break up the tenant-farming system. It did not mirror the land reforms of China or the DPRK or other socialist countries, in that it involved actual purchases: the government purchased the land from the land holders, and then resold these lands to the tenant-farmers at favorable loans. Long story short, it failed. It took a failing agricultural system and made it even more ineffectual. It was unpopular amongst... everyone. The land holders didn't like it, and the farmers didn't like it.

 

Whatever. That's not important for this discussion. What is important is that a reporter asked Imam Khomeini about this, on the eve of the revolution. And guess what he said? Imam asserted that the aim of the land reforms was in fact to create markets for foreign countries. He also proposed his own land reform, which he says would benefit the farmers rather than capital-holders. When asked by the interviewer if, when he takes power, he will return the White Revolution lands to their original owners, he states that because many of these landowners acted in violation of Islamic law (with respect to property), he would not give these lands back but distribute them based on need.

 

How about that, jack?

 

how about what? i honestly dont understand what point you are trying to make here.

 

and webster defines socialism as: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods ". you fail to see how most countries in the world employ some form of socialism?....... collective ownership, government subsidies, regulation of commerce......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

 

But Imam Khomeini wasn't just a critic of socialism. He was a staunch, stiff, harsh critic of socialism. This is evident even in a cursory look at his speeches and writings. He was perhaps more critical than any of the other revolutionary ulama.

What is the name? Is it translated to English?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

how about what? i honestly dont understand what point you are trying to make here.

 

and webster defines socialism as: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods ". you fail to see how most countries in the world employ some form of socialism?....... collective ownership, government subsidies, regulation of commerce......

 

Except that it's called government intervention, not socialism. Socialism implies much broader and deeper control over production and distribution of resources of a society, such that a government is the majority/absolute owner of almost every resource. Government subsidies/ regulations are all carried out, they say, to allow for more efficient use of resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What you are saying is a caricature.

 

It's laughable to prop up the threat of socialism after socialism has already lost.

 

It's over. Get over it. Stop inventing threats.

 

You refer to taxation as "taking money from someone else." There are taxes in Islam. It's not theft. It's a legitimate practice.

 

Social justice is not a filthy ideology. It is a universal principle. Supporting social justice and its implementation is not a subscription to the ideals of any socialist or communist theorist; it is simply a fitri response to injustice.

 

Get out of your fantasy world.

 

except in Islam it's done on a voluntary basis

 

whereas state taxation is not and it's enforced by violence

Except that it's called government intervention, not socialism. Socialism implies much broader and deeper control over production and distribution of resources of a society, such that a government is the majority/absolute owner of almost every resource. Government subsidies/ regulations are all carried out, they say, to allow for more efficient use of resources.

 

the minute the state intervenes or gets involved in the market, it is not capitalism

 

today govs around world are involved in the economy by having a monopoly on the issuance of wealth (via fiat money)

so this is not capitalisim

that is another form of political system, many called is socialism, some call it fascism, ...etc.

whatever it is, it is NOT capitalism

 

and godzapostle analysis is correct

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Except that it's called government intervention, not socialism. Socialism implies much broader and deeper control over production and distribution of resources of a society, such that a government is the majority/absolute owner of almost every resource. Government subsidies/ regulations are all carried out, they say, to allow for more efficient use of resources.

 

this does not make any sense.

do we need government to maintain an army and protect our God-given rights? yes

 

but do we need government to dictate how we ought to allocate our own resources? NO

how can anyone claim that government bureaucrats can more efficiently allocate resources than the people who earned those resources in the first place? this doesnt even make any sense.

 

are you more efficient with your own money or someone elses money? dont delude yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except in Islam it's done on a voluntary basis

 

whereas state taxation is not and it's enforced by violence

 

Don't expect me or anyone else here to take you seriously if you're incapable of providing an alternative solution. I have asked you repeatedly in your last thread to either explain why state tax isn't necessary or provide an alternative, to which you've deliberately ignored. Which makes me think you're either clueless or substanceless or both.

 

 

but do we need government to dictate how we ought to allocate our own resources? NO

how can anyone claim that government bureaucrats can more efficiently allocate resources than the people who earned those resources in the first place? this doesnt even make any sense.

 

The public sector provides impartiality, efficiency and accountability. It is unwise to allow all resources to be concentrated in the hands of private corporations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

this does not make any sense.

do we need government to maintain an army and protect our God-given rights? yes

 

but do we need government to dictate how we ought to allocate our own resources? NO

how can anyone claim that government bureaucrats can more efficiently allocate resources than the people who earned those resources in the first place? this doesnt even make any sense.

 

are you more efficient with your own money or someone elses money? dont delude yourself

 

Are you kidding me? The government runs the military, and a host of other public services in an otherwise capitalist society because these services will not come about through private means. In economics, this is called a market failure. Maintaining a military by taxing people, or making lighthouses, is a decision of allocation of our 'own' resources that is taken by the government.

except in Islam it's done on a voluntary basis

 

whereas state taxation is not and it's enforced by violence

 

the minute the state intervenes or gets involved in the market, it is not capitalism

 

today govs around world are involved in the economy by having a monopoly on the issuance of wealth (via fiat money)

so this is not capitalisim

that is another form of political system, many called is socialism, some call it fascism, ...etc.

whatever it is, it is NOT capitalism

 

and godzapostle analysis is correct

 

 

Issuance of money counts as government intervention ? Please enlighten us as to how private individuals would issue money. Or how would private individuals, in the absence of a government (what you seem to be advocating), would ensure the provision of natural rights to all, or any rights at all. Humans would degenerate to the Hobbesian state of nature.

 

There's a frickin' reason the government exists in the first place, and that includes ensuring the smooth running of the markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

Let's see: If you have $1 Billion and divide it by the US population (~317million) you get ~$3.17

 

If you divide $1Billion by the 18-65 age group, ~195million, you get ~$5.13.

 

What was it one of the Hunt brothers said 30 years ago? "A billion dollars isn't what it use to be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Issuance of money counts as government intervention ? Please enlighten us as to how private individuals would issue money. Or how would private individuals, in the absence of a government (what you seem to be advocating), would ensure the provision of natural rights to all, or any rights at all. Humans would degenerate to the Hobbesian state of nature.

 

 

No, giving a monopoly to one group of individuals to issue wealth, and banning/taxing others is gov intervention.

 

How it would look if gov was not involved in the market for currency, would look like today's global exchange market.

There would be competing currencies, and there would be plenty of services that will exchange one bank's currency to another bank's currency.

 

 

 

There's a frickin' reason the government exists in the first place, and that includes ensuring the smooth running of the markets.

 

NO

 

Gov has no right to enforce its demands in the market.  This is against Islamic teachings.

 

You say they are in charge in ensuring the market running smoothly...

 

what do you mean in charge?

 

 

Also

 

There's a frickin' reason slavery existed early in human history.  Because people weren't questioning the morality of the situation.

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Don't expect me or anyone else here to take you seriously if you're incapable of providing an alternative solution. I have asked you repeatedly in your last thread to either explain why state tax isn't necessary or provide an alternative, to which you've deliberately ignored. Which makes me think you're either clueless or substanceless or both.

 

The alternative would be something that is moral, which there is plenty of solutions proposed on the internet.

One alternative may be that the taxing is done voluntarily.

 

 

 

The public sector provides impartiality, efficiency and accountability.

 

The public sector is doing a pretty good job with the bankers aren't they?  :rolleyes:

Instead of letting them all fail, they continue giving them trillions on behalf of the taxpayers' unborn children.

 

 

It is unwise to allow all resources to be concentrated in the hands of private corporations.

 

 

Elaborate more on this point.

 

Did you mean private businesses instead?

Corporation is the result of gov laws enforced on the market.

It helps shield executives from liability.

Such shields would not exist in a gov-free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

how about what? i honestly dont understand what point you are trying to make here.

 

and webster defines socialism as: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods ". you fail to see how most countries in the world employ some form of socialism?....... collective ownership, government subsidies, regulation of commerce......

 

If you knew anything about socialism, you would know that there is a strong anti-state current within classical socialist thought.  Capitalism, which by definition creates completely unaccountable private tyranny, creates a dilemma, and although most sane socialists are not state-worshippers, they do prefer state-ownership to private ownership.  This is simply because governments as authoritarian as they can be, are potentially democratic, and can be pushed from below to respond to the interests of working people, private ownership is not accountable to anyone, and hence the potentially democratic state in a modern society is closer to a socialist ideal.  

 

Socialism did not end with the collapse of Soviet Union, it wasn't present in the first place, the Soviet state was more anti-socialist than half of state-capitalist western states today, especially in Europe.

 

except in Islam it's done on a voluntary basis

 

whereas state taxation is not and it's enforced by violence

 

the minute the state intervenes or gets involved in the market, it is not capitalism

 

today govs around world are involved in the economy by having a monopoly on the issuance of wealth (via fiat money)

so this is not capitalisim

that is another form of political system, many called is socialism, some call it fascism, ...etc.

whatever it is, it is NOT capitalism

 

and godzapostle analysis is correct

 
 

You know as well as I do that a purely capitalist society wouldn't last more than a week, you would have massive exploitation of labour and dictatorship of capital, even more inequality than you have today, nothing of sorts has ever existed, and even in theory it never can.  The US is a state-capitalist society where market discipline is reserved for the working and the poor, while the rich are protected by the corporate welfare state.  While the state offers some protection for the working at the poor, i.e social security and elementary education, it offers even more protection for the wealthy.

 

You have corporate America pushing for cuts to the already severely depleted social programs (shrinking government), while at the same time they want a strong state which will enact legislation to crush strikes, keep corporate taxes low, protect their copyrights, property and intellectual rights, and bail them out in-case they get too adventurous in pursuit of profits.

 

The solution here is obvious, you have to reduce corporate welfare for the wealthy, and you get the state working for the majority of the American people.  This is only possible through an organized democratic movement from below.   It is NOT to shrink government to a point where whatever is left of a potentially democratic state is handed over to huge concentrations of unaccountable private power, your average citizen would stand no chance.

 

All this rhetoric about taxes and theft (which confirms that Fox news pundits are your favourite economics professors) is ludicrous.  Any group of sane, compassionate and considerate human beings in a community would get together and pool their money to choose collectively the kinds of social programs to invest in, that's what normal people do and most people are more than happy to pay taxes provided they are invested into worthwhile programs.

 

What do you really want?  Do you want capitalism? Child labour? Workers without rights? Totally unaccountable private ownership? A dollar value on all our freedoms? No social benefits for those who cannot sell their labour on some superficial market?  No access to education for those who cannot afford it? What do you propose exactly?  

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

All this rhetoric about taxes and theft (which confirms that Fox news pundits are your favourite economics professors) is ludicrous

 

It is not rhetoric.

 

There are valid points because of the ethical dilemma involved in the situation.  Violence/threat/coercion is involved when obtaining taxes.

 

The coercion is immoral.

 

 

 .  Any group of sane, compassionate and considerate human beings in a community would get together and pool their money to choose collectively the kinds of social programs to invest in

 

Great, let the people choose an organization, mosque, church, ...etc. to take care of these desires.

Not a group of individuals who will use violence against people if they don't comply.

 

 

, that's what normal people do and most people are more than happy to pay taxes provided they are invested into worthwhile programs.

 

Can you elaborate to me how

 

invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a worthwhile program?

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One alternative may be that the taxing is done voluntarily.

And what sorts of public services would this fund where private businesses preside over all ownership?

Elaborate more on this point.

Lack of transparency. What is the role of government according to you? There are government ministers of state for various sectors administering public legislation with a large group of civil servants below operating with those laws. Accountability is present.

Edited by polymath07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Pure capitalism is feudalism.

Please tell me more about what you mean by voluntary tax. I find the idea interesting. I think of restaurant tax, "sin tax", toll roads, and state lotteries as examples of voluntary tax. But these would have to be expanded immensely to pay for all the services required by modern society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

And what sorts of public services would this fund where private businesses preside over all ownership?

 

I don't understand what you mean by private businesses preside over all ownership.

 

In a free market, there will a lot of nonprofit organization.

Whatever services people want.they can voluntarism give money to these organizations to provide them whatever 'public service' they like.

 

 

Lack of transparency. What is the role of government according to you? There are government ministers of state for various sectors administering public legislation with a large group of civil servants below operating with those laws. Accountability is present.

 

Why do you believe that bureaucrats can do a better job in administrating the economy than the private sector?

 

I don't see them doing a good job in handling the bankers.

The bureaucrats are keeping banks afloat by stealing wealth from taxpayers and the unborn children of future generations, the free market would've bankrupt them in 2008 and put them permanently out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure capitalism is feudalism.

But these would have to be expanded immensely to pay for all the services required by modern society.

Can you explain why the government has to levy a tax instead of directly funding these services?

the free market would've bankrupt them in 2008 and put them permanently out of business.

Who exactly would put them "permanently out of business?" I presume that there'd need to be a preexisting central authority, no?

Edited by polymath07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Pure capitalism is feudalism.

 

Can you elaborate more on this argument.

 

I don't see the dictionary defining it as such.

 

 

 

Please tell me more about what you mean by voluntary tax. I find the idea interesting. I think of restaurant tax, "sin tax", toll roads, and state lotteries as examples of voluntary tax. But these would have to be expanded immensely to pay for all the services required by modern society.

 

If an individual wants a certain service, they can choose to pay an organization that claims to able to organize it and service it.  If they don't want that service, then they can choose not to pay them and they won't face a violent backlash for making such a decision.

Who exactly would put them "permanently out of business?" I presume that there'd need to be a preexisting central authority, no?

 

???

 

What I meant is that those banks would go bankrupt and will lose all their customers, therefore there would not longer be in business.

Like Lehman's Bros, Bear Stearn, ...etc.

Edited by fibonacci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Can you explain why the government has to levy a tax instead of directly funding these services?

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.

 

This is just one example that comes to my mind, but maybe you have one where it would be feasible and just to charge the citizens directly for infrastructure and community services?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you knew anything about socialism, you would know that there is a strong anti-state current within classical socialist thought.  Capitalism, which by definition creates completely unaccountable private tyranny, creates a dilemma, and although most sane socialists are not state-worshippers, they do prefer state-ownership to private ownership.  This is simply because governments as authoritarian as they can be, are potentially democratic, and can be pushed from below to respond to the interests of working people, private ownership is not accountable to anyone, and hence the potentially democratic state in a modern society is closer to a socialist ideal.  

 

Socialism did not end with the collapse of Soviet Union, it wasn't present in the first place, the Soviet state was more anti-socialist than half of state-capitalist western states today, especially in Europe.

 

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Can you elaborate more on this argument.

 

I don't see the dictionary defining it as such.

I'm not a dictionary, I am a person. When there are few controlling the resources and allowing the non-owners subsistence in exchange for their work, that is feudalism. Capitalism, left unchecked, will always revert to feudalism in the long run. Those who have wealth can easily gain more and those who have little easily lose what they have. 

 

 

If an individual wants a certain service, they can choose to pay an organization that claims to able to organize it and service it.  If they don't want that service, then they can choose not to pay them and they won't face a violent backlash for making such a decision.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm not a dictionary, I am a person. When there are few controlling the resources and allowing the non-owners subsistence in exchange for their work, that is feudalism. Capitalism, left unchecked, will always revert to feudalism in the long run. Those who have wealth can easily gain more and those who have little easily lose what they have. 

 

 

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.

 

access to schools, roads and libraries are not a human right and should be transformed into pay for use services. protection from crime and national defense are of the few reasons there should be some form of taxation but it definetly should not be on income or savings.

 

a small tax on consumption in order to finance these things would be ideal but it seems you people basically want government to act as a third parent for you and cuddle you from cradle to grave.

 

have some dignity and stop feeling so entitled.

Don't expect me or anyone else here to take you seriously if you're incapable of providing an alternative solution. I have asked you repeatedly in your last thread to either explain why state tax isn't necessary or provide an alternative, to which you've deliberately ignored. Which makes me think you're either clueless or substanceless or both.

 

 

 

The public sector provides impartiality, efficiency and accountability. It is unwise to allow all resources to be concentrated in the hands of private corporations. 

 

why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

it does not provide impartiality or efficiency. bureacrats are human beings and have preferences just like everyone else. they could decide that resources should be allocated to an inefficient sector of the economy due to a preference for some social program over another. the fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you believe government is inherently good and can better spend your money than you can.

 

if you feel that way then go ahead and send a bigger check next time youre doing your taxes. nobody is stopping you, but why are you trying to force me to do the same? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...