Capitalism - a new perspective

Dustin · September 20, 2014, 11:33:16 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Solonoid · September 20, 2014, 11:39:40 PM

Mein gott, the dustbin has produced logical sentiment.

Dustin · September 20, 2014, 11:40:16 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Solonoid · September 20, 2014, 11:48:18 PM

Quote from: xXx BUTT X HURT xXx on September 20, 2014, 11:40:16 PM

Quote from: Solonoid on September 20, 2014, 11:39:40 PM
Mein gott, the dustbin has produced logical sentiment.
Is that unusual?

Incredibly.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 03:56:01 AM

My main problem with Marx, as the late Christopher Hitchens noted, was that he drastically underestimated the capacity for capitalistic innovation.

Other than that, I'm not entirely sure how to approach your question. I don't know what you're asking. It seems to me that inordinate wealth distribution is not only unnecessary, but undesirable. I'm all for redistributing wealth to the bottom of the socioeconomic pile now though, without taxing the rich at 80pc as some French academics would have us do. I'm not entirely sure how you can justify the "cut off point", either. When do we reach the point of enough innovation to begin the redistribution of wealth?

Solonoid · September 21, 2014, 05:08:46 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 21, 2014, 03:56:01 AM

My main problem with Marx, as the late Christopher Hitchens noted, was that he drastically underestimated the capacity for capitalistic innovation.

Other than that, I'm not entirely sure how to approach your question. I don't know what you're asking. It seems to me that inordinate wealth distribution is not only unnecessary, but undesirable. I'm all for redistributing wealth to the bottom of the socioeconomic pile now though, without taxing the rich at 80pc as some French academics would have us do. I'm not entirely sure how you can justify the "cut off point", either. When do we reach the point of enough innovation to begin the redistribution of wealth?

The redistribution of wealth is something that the rich must take upon themselves.

Keynesian economics will only get you so far for so long, at some point, we have to recognise that it is the responsibility of those who hold wealth to decide on how to distribute it.

The day the government gets together to discuss the redistribution of wealth (a day that has already come for many countries; RIP American market economy), is a day that any Capitalist nation should mourn the passing of the greatest economic principle mankind has ever known: Consumer Sovereignty.

The day that Big Brother decides how the wealthy ought to allot their money, is the first step they have taken to deciding how the poor allot their money, however meagre.

If they can give you money, they can tell you how to spend it.

Am I speaking baselessly?
Is there no proof that they would abuse this in such a way?

There is proof.
In the US, we have a system in place to assure that no American goes hungry.
Perhaps your country has welfare for the unemployed?
Or even the same system I am about to cover?

If your household has the correct number of people, and an annual income below a marked amount, then you qualify for Food Stamps.

Now, food stamps are ONLY for food.
It is borderline impossible to buy other things.
That's okay.

What's more, some brands are off limits.
Only certain retailers are licensed to accept food stamps.
Consumer choice has now been limited to the food that the government can make the highest tax revenue letting you buy, because sales tax is compiled after a bill has been written.
So now, the rich have been taxed so the poor can eat, and the poor have been taxed more so that the government can get a better return. Perhaps this person has bought more than they would've on their own dime. That's even more taxes in the government's pocket.

Because of these taxes and welfare systems, the rich don't feel obligated to look after the lower class.
They don't feel the need to spend their money on domestic products to help out entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs can't expand to sell foreignly if they can't sell domestically. You stop taking money in and you only send it out, and everyone is afraid to invest because the economy looks so bad.

Kickstarter is the greatest example of private sector wealth redistribution at work that the 21st century has ever known, and there would probably burgeoning microinvestment firm in every city if the government would stop trying to impose wealth redistribution on the people.

But now I'm ranting, so...

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 05:16:47 AM

Quote from: Solonoid on September 21, 2014, 05:08:46 AM

The redistribution of wealth is something that the rich must take upon themselves.

They can take as much redistribution upon themselves so long as the government enforces a minimum.

Quote

Keynesian economics will only get you so far for so long, at some point, we have to recognise that it is the responsibility of those who hold wealth to decide on how to distribute it.

Yeah, I'm no Keynesian. I do agree, however, that wealth redistribution can only happen so much before the economy tanks.

Quote

If they can give you money, they can tell you how to spend it.

Well I agree with you there, and I think it's a tragedy. I'd never support (and don't support) a welfare system which pretends to know what is in the best interests of the poor.

Quote

It is borderline impossible to buy other things.

Well, part of the reason dictating what people should buy doesn't work is because people underestimate the ingenuity of the poor. Depending on the system, they will find a way to swap and trade whatever they want.

Quote

Because of these taxes and welfare systems, the rich don't feel obligated to look after the lower class.

They probably wouldn't anyway, without some other motivating factor.

Quote

They don't feel the need to spend their money on domestic products to help out entrepreneurs

Good, they shouldn't have to. Free trade is a good thing for a reason.

Quote

But now I'm ranting, so...

Yes, yes you are.

Solonoid · September 21, 2014, 05:24:43 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 21, 2014, 05:16:47 AM

Spoiler
Quote from: Solonoid on September 21, 2014, 05:08:46 AM
The redistribution of wealth is something that the rich must take upon themselves.
They can take as much redistribution upon themselves so long as the government enforces a minimum.

Quote
Keynesian economics will only get you so far for so long, at some point, we have to recognise that it is the responsibility of those who hold wealth to decide on how to distribute it.
Yeah, I'm no Keynesian. I do agree, however, that wealth redistribution can only happen so much before the economy tanks.

Quote
If they can give you money, they can tell you how to spend it.

Well I agree with you there, and I think it's a tragedy. I'd never support (and don't support) a welfare system which pretends to know what is in the best interests of the poor.

Quote
It is borderline impossible to buy other things.
Well, part of the reason dictating what people should buy doesn't work is because people underestimate the ingenuity of the poor. Depending on the system, they will find a way to swap and trade whatever they want.

Quote
Because of these taxes and welfare systems, the rich don't feel obligated to look after the lower class.
They probably wouldn't anyway, without some other motivating factor.

Quote
They don't feel the need to spend their money on domestic products to help out entrepreneurs
Good, they shouldn't have to. Free trade is a good thing for a reason.

Quote
But now I'm ranting, so...
Yes, yes you are.

You don't believe that buying domestic products increases the standard of living for everyone around you?

America became a super power in the early 20th century by essentially being a massive circle jerk, and doing a lot more exporting than importing.

The very wealthy have always felt obligated to share, and the middle tier of rich people, who reside in millions, as opposed to billions, used to feel the same. With the current tax situation going the way it is in the US, those people feel like they've already done they're part.

People know wealth needs to be redistributed, the problem is we don't like being forced. Not only would we rather do it out of the kindness of our hearts, but that way it ends up in the hands of who the benefactor wants it to end up in the hands of.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 05:38:42 AM

Quote from: Solonoid on September 21, 2014, 05:24:43 AM

You don't believe that buying domestic products increases the standard of living for everyone around you?

Not necessarily. The importation of cheap, foreign goods heightens consumer surplus and makes people, overall, wealthier. Let's assume the government raises tariffs to make foreign imports slightly more expensive than domestic goods. Now then, spending on domestic goods might help a local producer or farmer, but everybody's poorer because of it.

The capital and labour kept in the production of those domestic goods and services which, without tariffs, would fall to foreign competition is wasteful.

Quote

America became a super power in the early 20th century by essentially being a massive circle jerk, and doing a lot more exporting than importing.

Well, I'm not saying a trade deficit is absolutely fine. Exporting always helps. However, running either a trade surplus or deficit cannot last forever in most circumstances, as the currency appreciates or depreciates on foreign markets. Australia hasn't had a recession since 1991, all the while running a large trade deficit. When it becomes a problem, it's usually indicative of some structural weakness in the economy, such as too little saving.

Quote

People know wealth needs to be redistributed, the problem is we don't like being forced. Not only would we rather do it out of the kindness of our hearts, but that way it ends up in the hands of who the benefactor wants it to end up in the hands of.

Sucks to be the people, then. I'm not arguing for a massive welfare scheme; it'd probably be smaller than our current one (for the UK or the US) and be far more streamlined. If people don't like that, then tough. Liberty has to take a few punches in order to allow the bottom to not starve in the streets.

Damnit, you're making me sound like a Lefty.

Dustin · September 21, 2014, 10:00:13 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 12:08:00 PM

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 10:00:13 AM

If you want more wealth, you need to take it from someone else.

I'm not being facetious when I say that's the single-biggest fallacy among lay-economists.

In answer to your question, however, yes, wealth redistribution has the potential to cause deadweight loss on the economy.

Dustin · September 21, 2014, 12:37:15 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 12:47:59 PM

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 12:37:15 PM

I don't think you're understanding the scientific geological factors here... like at all. Raw elements and materials cannot be expanded upon. We have only what the earth has to offer, and the question I'm asking is whether or not it's enough to create a middle class standard for all people AND to focus on technological innovation. I cannot tell if you just don't understand or if you're purposely ignoring my point, but it's frustrating either way.

And you don't seem to understand the market capacities for innovation. Raw elements and materials don't necessarily need to be expanded upon. If you use up raw materials, and diminish the supply (although, I might add, the USGS is quite confident on our incredibly ample supply of minerals) then technological innovation will result in ways, not previously known, to enhance the supply or the price will go up and only those willing to pay will have access and the market will develop alternatives to perform exactly the same purpose, as is what happened with copper.

Also, I answered your question. Massive re-distribution of wealth has the potential to cause deadweight loss which will slow, halt or even diminish economic activity and innovation - which will, in turn, slow technological advances. It also depends on your definition of "middle class", as everybody in America with zero income and subject to transfers are, by global standards, of the middle class.

Is that clear, now? Redistribution causes deadweight loss, which causes a slack in innovation, which causes a diminished capacity to efficiently exploit the Earth's resources or develop alternatives. The question of whether, if by some global regime, we could enforce middle-class standards (of whatever measure) on the entire population of the Earth is a mathematical one I can't answer, although I doubt the desirability of raising the floor to be in-line with the middle class and doubt the necessity of a government programme to increase bottom wealth in the first place.

Sandtrap · September 21, 2014, 01:53:58 PM

Here's the only real plothole in it all.

Who's steering where the technology evolution goes? One could argue even, that technology is already going down the wrong way. Currently, technology isn't evolving for the sake of evolving. It's evolving for the sake of money.

Sell you this sell you that, six months later something else comes out with a few more features than the last, but overall it's nothing really new. Maximization of profits for as little innovation as possible.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 02:00:05 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on September 21, 2014, 01:53:58 PM

Who's steering where the technology evolution goes?

The consumers.

Dustin · September 21, 2014, 07:00:22 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 07:16:15 PM

*sigh*

Fuck you, it's like 1am.

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 07:00:22 PM

I think you're a bit disillusioned about the extraordinary wealth the planet has to offer. Yes it is bountiful, but mostly inaccessible. Most resources are in heavy demand, they're not just sitting around in a warehouse in some third world country. It's going to take a lot of technological advancement before we're able to start mining much of it. For now, we have a very limited amount, and the fact very little of it is being recycled doesn't help. So let me bridge the gap of understanding: you think we do have the resources to both improve the lives of the bottom AND further technological innovation, but you don't want to redistribute any of it because it would hurt the economy. Is that right or wrong?

Essentially. I'd be opposed to heavy re-distribution because of the negative economic effects under any circumstances.

By the way, here's what the USGS says about (for example) bauxite for aluminium:

Quote

Bauxite resources are estimated to be 55 to 75 billion tons, in Africa (32%), Oceania (23%), South
America and the Caribbean (21%), Asia (18%), and elsewhere (6%). Domestic resources of bauxite are inadequate to meet long-term U.S. demand, but the United States and most other major aluminum-producing countries have essentially inexhaustible subeconomic resources of aluminum in materials other than bauxite.

Demand fuels innovation more than anything else, as the demise of copper brought us silicon and the demise of oil will bring us other alternatives. You can have any sort of economy you want and still, to varying degrees, get innovation but you will never get it so good and so beautiful as in a market.

Quote

How exactly would enabling more people to become highly skilled scientists and engineers decrease technological innovation granted the amount of resources available to society isn't an issue?

You're asking how redistribution - which would enable greater scientific education - would result in a lack of technological advancement?

Liquidity. If economic activity stagnates, no innovation happens. It's just not possible. The wealthy help provide investment through funding R&D and everybody else helps through savings (which diminish the further down the socioeconomic scale you go, of course).

Not to mention, when it comes to poverty (which is what redistribution should be about), redistribution of wealth need only be minimal if you stabilise the labour market.

Sandtrap · September 21, 2014, 07:33:58 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 21, 2014, 02:00:05 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on September 21, 2014, 01:53:58 PM
Who's steering where the technology evolution goes?
The consumers.

And rightfully so, they're doing a piss poor job of it.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 07:35:18 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on September 21, 2014, 07:33:58 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 21, 2014, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Sandtrap on September 21, 2014, 01:53:58 PM
Who's steering where the technology evolution goes?
The consumers.

And rightfully so, they're doing a piss poor job of it.

I'd like to see you do better than the billions of people currently doing so.

Dustin · September 21, 2014, 07:37:05 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 07:40:20 PM

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 07:37:05 PM

In Meta's mind

Fuck you, don't even begin to think you can talk for me.

Dustin · September 21, 2014, 07:40:38 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 07:42:07 PM

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 07:40:38 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 21, 2014, 07:40:20 PM
Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 07:37:05 PM
In Meta's mind
Fuck you, don't even begin to think you can talk for me.
How angsty.

Not really. It's just funny how you're so patently arrogant and wrong. I'm not even sure where you got the idea that I said science is funded primarily by investment (assuming the sort of investment via the banking system).

Dustin · September 21, 2014, 07:47:36 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 07:50:28 PM

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 07:47:36 PM

I just like to sit and watch how right wing economists like to talk about technological innovation even though a super high majority of technologists, scientists, and engineers are leftists who generally don't do their job for a cash reward beyond the need to care for their family, but because they legitimately want a better world.

What does that have to do with anything at all?

Like, seriously. . . I really don't understand what the financial and social preferences of engineers and scientists has to do with this. Being a leftist doesn't have a monopoly on wanting to see a better world, either.

Dustin · September 21, 2014, 07:52:37 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 07:54:56 PM

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 07:52:37 PM

I think you need to go to bed because you have school tomorrow and sleep deprivation fucks you over.

No, I'm fine. I only usually get four hours' sleep a night.

So, go ahead. I'm still waiting for you to point out where I said science is funded primarily by savings.

Dustin · September 21, 2014, 07:57:50 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 21, 2014, 08:01:02 PM

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 07:57:50 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 21, 2014, 07:54:56 PM
Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 07:52:37 PM
I think you need to go to bed because you have school tomorrow and sleep deprivation fucks you over.
No, I'm fine. I only usually get four hours' sleep a night.

So, go ahead. I'm still waiting for you to point out where I said science is funded primarily by savings.
I disengaged from serious discussion when I called you angsty. I mean the whole thread you sort of missed the point that I was advocating capitalism, yet you still argued with me over the whole thing.

I got that you were suddenly sympathetic to capitalism, my annoyance lies in your repeated asking of questions which I had answered simply. I wasn't arguing with you. I answered your query as I understood it and you kept questioning me.

Would massive redistribution of wealth hurt scientific advances? That was your question, essentially, was it not?

Turkey · September 22, 2014, 10:12:24 PM

I see communism as more of a global renaissance type of system. When everyone is free to pursue their interests without their life focused around working 9-5 to just pay rent, you'd have lots of room to explore and innovate. At the very least we'd probably see the arts flourish more. Then again, the works of Shakespeare were made to pay a meager wage, so I'm not sure. I don't see communism ever being functional on a state scale until war is obsolete and healthcare advances significantly.

So to answer your question, I think technological advance is just a human condition, and an evolutionary one. We're going to progress regardless of our artificial economic system.