Income Inequality

[squadops]

What? please explain, I'm at a loss.

What has perpetuated our success is our republic.

 

[mustafur]

What? please explain, I'm at a loss.

What has perpetuated our success is our republic.

Which is based on what Fiscal policy, there has and are many republics they are not all the same.

It's the same reason why Hong Kong was Fiscally on another planet to the rest of Mainland china for a large period of time, and also you could say Taiwan when Mainland went in the other direction whilst the capitalists moved to that island.

 

[squadops]

Seeing as how I said "our republic" I'm not sure where you lost the track.

Capitalism as a result of growth? what does that mean?

 

[mustafur]

Seeing as how I said "our republic" I'm not sure where you lost the track.

Capitalism as a result of growth? what does that mean?

Not a result, the Reason.

 

[squadops]

Your are going to have to do a bit better, I have no clue what you speak of, now you are against success? Oh you are saying that capitalism is the reason for success and that is somehow a bad thing.

 

[mustafur]

Your are going to have to do a bit better, I have no clue what you speak of, now you are against success? Oh you are saying that capitalism is the reason for success and that is somehow a bad thing.

These are your words, quote me on what your talking about.
I Have always been a Supporter of Capitalism but I guess my definition of Capitalism is very far from what you think it is.

 

[squadops]

You're last few post make little to no sense to me, I was trying to get you to explain. Are you for or against capitalism, are you for or against democracy?

It's hard to tell at this point, maybe others understand your posts but I do not in this convo.

 

[mustafur]

I'm a Supporter of capitalism but I haven't made an opinion on Democracy.

Please don't assume im saying something if I didn't actually say it.

The last 2 pages I have been talking about how democracy and No-democracy doesn't effect economic growth, what I have said though is Capitalism is the reason for growth though.

Success and growth if i have used them together(can't remember) was a mistake to use though, these are entirely up to how the person sees fit.

 

[squadops]

I think I understand well enough now 👍

 

[mustafur]

Now it might seem strange on why I have been supporting Bernie Sanders, this is because he was the only person left in the race at that point that can actually give America a chance to get proper capitalism.

Ill tell you why.

The Number 1 reason why America has gone soo far away from what it originally had was because of Corporate money effecting government, this created a Socialism system for these donors and allowed a select few, not the actual market to control the economy direction.

To me this is just as much Socialist as actual socialism for the lower half of the income tree, so I was indifferent on Bernies Fiscal policy's to what is actually happing in america as it is.

None of it is proper capitalism so as a supporter of pure capitalism both are equally wrong, the advantage of Bernie though was his acknowledgement of the real problem that can actually create a situation where real capitalism can exist with the removal of the current Corporate Campaign finance system which has created all this mess in the first place.

Now there is certain issues I have with pure capitalism but only a few and that mainly involves Humanities existence, anything that can damage this needs to have solutions whether or not it's Capitalism in nature(I mean what kind of people would we be if we are damaging liberty across the board from something we wilfully know exists).

 

[squadops]

You still dismiss my man Johnson, most likely without reading a word about him. Look at his record as NM Governor, besides the fact that Bernie is done.

This is an econ thread though so I will simply bring up again his steadfast idea of ending the fed reserve 👍

A little bit of these words address the inequality problem, just a little bit.

 

[mustafur]

You still dismiss my man Johnson, most likely without reading a word about him. Look at his record as NM Governor, besides the fact that Bernie is done.

This is an econ thread though so I will simply bring up again his steadfast idea of ending the fed reserve 👍

I told you I know who Johnson is, but im thinking in a way that can bring immediate change and or change in a realistic timeframe, Johnson easily is closer to my view point then anyone in the race but I know the chance of getting anything from how the voting system works in america is dreaming not thinking.

The only reason i have been ''dismissing'' him is because of democracy(or whatever you want to call it) and that is all.

If he was in the Two party nomination system then I can see something, but when you have corporate money flowing freely into the political process a betting man doesn't place a bet on something that isn't there to be betted on.

 

[squadops]

Oh, because of the two party system, well tbh it's never been weaker but as I've been saying for some time now in the right thread, we shall have a second Clinton.

It is fair for me to say in this thread that Sanders represents everything our money system is against, his idea of wealth is that to have none at all

 

[mustafur]

Oh, because of the two party system, well tbh it's never been weaker but as I've been saying for some time now in the right thread, we shall have a second Clinton.

It is fair for me to say in this thread that Sanders represents everything our money system is against, his idea of wealth is that to have none at all

Please read everyone I said above your johnson post, it's all the same.

It's all two halves of the same end, just more people get effected by how it is now.

 

[squadops]

It doesn't have to be though, that is the point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The last 2 pages I have been talking about how democracy and No-democracy doesn't effect economic growth, what I have said though is Capitalism is the reason for growth though.

Success and growth if i have used them together(can't remember) was a mistake to use though, these are entirely up to how the person sees fit.

No democracy doesn't affect economic growth? Then how is that that the vast, vast majority of countries in the world with high standards of living are democracies? Most of those in the top 50 that aren't democracies have their money flow out of the ground, purely random luck.

 

[mustafur]

No democracy doesn't affect economic growth? Then how is that that the vast, vast majority of countries in the world with high standards of living are democracies? Most of those in the top 50 that aren't democracies have their money flow out of the ground, purely random luck.

Because you are looking at what country has democracy and what doesn't, unless you give me information about how individual countries are growing because of Democracy, your just assuming X = Y because it does Z.

 

[Biggles]

Just as the fetal, juvenile and adult phases are part of human maturation, so the 19th century was necessary to the maturation of the (exceptional and indispensable ) US.

If you had a time machine, would you attempt to fix any of this?

Libertarians have a tendency to extoll the 19th century US for its "freedom", suggesting that things were better then, but for myself, I agree with you: the US in the 19th century was a work in progress - it was, for most people, a pretty crappy place to live ... except for all the other countries, which were worse. What improved it & eventually improved all the other Western countries was democracy - the ability of average citizens (commonly referred to in libertarian circles as the "mob") to exercise some control over their lives through the measures of universal suffrage, the introduction of work place regulations, unionization & collective bargaining, progressive income taxes, public education, social security etc. All these things led to a more equitable & also more prosperous society in which the rich continued to be rich, but the average citizen's quality of life also improved immensely.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because you are looking at what country has democracy and what doesn't, unless you give me information about how individual countries are growing because of Democracy, your just assuming X = Y because it does Z.

Basically this is your answer:

The US in the 19th century was a work in progress - it was, for most people, a pretty crappy place to live ... except for all the other countries, which were worse. What improved it & eventually improved all the other Western countries was democracy - the ability of average citizens (commonly referred to in libertarian circles as the "mob") to exercise some control over their lives through the measures of universal suffrage, the introduction of work place regulations, unionization & collective bargaining, progressive income taxes, public education, social security etc. All these things led to a more equitable & also more prosperous society in which the rich continued to be rich, but the average citizen's quality of life also improved immensely.

 

[mustafur]

So all those things are only created through democracy?

The Soviets introduced all those things without having Democracy(including Public healthcare which none at the time had), of course the economic system was flawed so it failed.

Also Technoledgy and it's innovations(Such as Mass Production) can't be ignored when it comes to improvement of living standards(Things get easier and cheaper to make supplying a market that before did not have access).

Food gets cheaper, Goods gets cheaper and so do Luxuries(none of which have to be supplied by a Central Authority).

 

[Johnnypenso]

So all those things are only created through democracy?

The Soviets introduced all those things without having Democracy(including Public healthcare which none at the time had), of course the economic system was flawed so it failed.

Also Technoledgy and it's innovations(Such as Mass Production) can't be ignored when it comes to improvement of living standards(Things get easier and cheaper to make supplying a market that before did not have access).

Food gets cheaper, Goods gets cheaper and so do Luxuries(none of which have to be supplied by a Central Authority).

Democracy lays the foundations of freedom that make innovation possible. It's not a coincidence that most of the major discoveries, innovations, technological achievements, medical advancement and just about everything worthwhile in the last century came from democracies. Russia had public healthcare and it also had breadlines. If that's your cup of tea, enjoy it.

 

[FoolKiller]

@mustafur

You keep bringing up thinking that corporations shouldn't have a voice in politics. I have to ask, do you feel the same about labor unions and social groups?

 

[Exorcet]

What improved it & eventually improved all the other Western countries was democracy - the ability of average citizens (commonly referred to in libertarian circles as the "mob")

The "average citizen" is not the mob. The mob is the majority. Pure democracy allows for things like slavery just because one group doesn't like another group and is larger. That's the problem with it and why it is a terrible form of government.

 

[Danoff]

Although not fully relevant I would say China's Growth in the last 15 years is something a democracy couldn't achieve.

Dubai & Abu Dhabi another.

When it comes to political donations they actually have more rights then the person they supposedly are, as under citizens United they have no limit to campaign contributions where as an individual is capped below 6k.

Are you arguing against a cap on individual campaign contributions? Maybe... under the 1st Amendment?

I get that campaign contributions are a big issue for you, and I also understand why. If corporations can influence lawmakers, maybe they can get some favorable laws (crony capitalism, also known as cronyism and not capitalism). This is (partly) what we have a constitution for - to protect against laws that the government has no authority to pass. The more laws, the more political influence buys you.

Libertarians have a tendency to extoll the 19th century US for its "freedom", suggesting that things were better then, but for myself, I agree with you: the US in the 19th century was a work in progress - it was, for most people, a pretty crappy place to live ... except for all the other countries, which were worse. What improved it & eventually improved all the other Western countries was democracy - the ability of average citizens (commonly referred to in libertarian circles as the "mob") to exercise some control over their lives through the measures of universal suffrage, the introduction of work place regulations, unionization & collective bargaining, progressive income taxes, public education, social security etc. All these things led to a more equitable & also more prosperous society in which the rich continued to be rich, but the average citizen's quality of life also improved immensely.

We've been over this. You're linking elements that are not correlated. "Freedom" does not require slavery, or oppression of women, or dead natives any more than it requires poor medical care, a lack of electricity, or powdered wigs. I get that you want to draw this parallel between freedom and anything bad that happened at the time because you hate freedom, but you can't just wave your arms and say "you want some aspects of society to be more like they were in 1833, we had cholera outbreaks in 1833, you want cholera?". It's a poor argument.

Pure democracy is the rule of the mob. There is no getting around that, and mob rule hasn't worked out. That's why the US (and most other western countries you refer to) isn't a democracy. What you're incorrectly attributing to democracy you should be attributing to representative government - at least in as far as the ability of the average citizen to exercise control over their lives.

The rest of it... workplace regulations, unionization, progressive income taxes, public education, social security, are all drags on economic growth that don't actually help anyone. None of those things go hand-in-hand with representative government or even democracy really, they come along with a government that allows rights violations. Workplace regulations harm people, they lead to unemployment. Unionization (or, more specifically, unbalanced laws that favor unions over other individuals or groups) also leads to unemployment. Social security contributes to unemployment, lower wages, lower savings, lack of personal responsibility, and ultimately poverty. Progressive income taxes is an odd thing to list because it doesn't even pretend to help anyone, that's just a negative. It doesn't even necessarily raise revenue. Public education is a poor solution to a real issue. What most of these have in common is that they violate peoples rights. To go in order, they violate the rights of contract, contract, equal protection, equal protection, and contract.

"Equitable" is a bizarre requirement that I already lampooned in the opening post. "Equitable" has nothing to do with "prosperous", and to suggest otherwise is to ignore economics and the concept of wealth.

Edit:

What amazes me about the typical pro-socialist pro-taxation arguments is that we've had all that stuff for 100 years and we're fully a socialist nation and yet... somehow the problem is still capitalism.

 

[Biggles]

The "average citizen" is not the mob. The mob is the majority. Pure democracy allows for things like slavery just because one group doesn't like another group and is larger. That's the problem with it and why it is a terrible form of government.

That's just projection on the part of libertarians. Democracy has proved a very successful form of government - or at least, better than than all the other ones. Slavery didn't exist because of democracy, it existed because a relatively small (capitalist) elite used it as a way to ensure profitability for their industry. They even successfully framed it as an issue of "freedom" from federal influence & "states rights" to convince the majority of southerners, who didn't own slaves, to fight & die to protect the elite's right to continue their slave-based industry.

We've been over this. You're linking elements that are not correlated. "Freedom" does not require slavery, or oppression of women, or dead natives any more than it requires poor medical care, a lack of electricity, or powdered wigs. I get that you want to draw this parallel between freedom and anything bad that happened at the time because you hate freedom, but you can't just wave your arms and say "you want some aspects of society to be more like they were in 1833, we had cholera outbreaks in 1833, you want cholera?". It's a poor argument.

I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to say here. I don't "hate freedom". I don't want society to be more like it was in 1833 - that's a libertarian shtick. The bad things that happened in history didn't happen because of "freedom", they happened because the rich & powerful have a tendency to use their wealth & power to abuse the poor & powerless: in 19th century, in the US, african-American slaves, indigenous people, women, children, immigrants etc. Having a constitution did not prevent it from happening because rich people controlled the political process & they controlled the courts. Democracy, in conjunction with an established framework of rights helped, over time, to level the playing field.

What amazes me about the typical pro-socialist pro-taxation arguments is that we've had all that stuff for 100 years and we're fully a socialist nation and yet... somehow the problem is still capitalism.

Yes, we've had "all that stuff" for 100 years & we're a much better world for it. All developed countries have some form of "mixed economy" which incorporate capitalism & some elements of socialism and yet ... somehow the problem is still socialism.

 

[squadops]

They even successfully framed it as an issue of "freedom" from federal influence & "states rights" to convince the majority of southerners, who didn't own slaves, to fight & die to protect the elite's right to continue their slave-based industry.

Simply not true and besides we have a thread all about it. You are going to have to show me where these southerners were so hoodwinked, perhaps by having trains and banks crammed down their throat, farms burned and the like in the name of progress maybe? I know you honestly believe in the north's virtuous intentions but you would be incorrect in doing so.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to say here. I don't "hate freedom". I don't want society to be more like it was in 1833 - that's a libertarian shtick. The bad things that happened in history didn't happen because of "freedom", they happened because the rich & powerful have a tendency to use their wealth & power to abuse the poor & powerless: in 19th century, in the US, african-American slaves, indigenous people, women, children, immigrants etc. Having a constitution did not prevent it from happening because rich people controlled the political process & they controlled the courts. Democracy, in conjunction with an established framework of rights helped, over time, to level the playing field.

Representative government combined with a constitution helped over time. The notion that individuals have basic human rights is at least as powerful, if not more so, and more original with the US, than representative government.

Yes, we've had "all that stuff" for 100 years & we're a much better world for it. All developed countries have some form of "mixed economy" which incorporate capitalism & some elements of socialism and yet ... somehow the problem is still socialism.

None of "all that stuff" affected "abuse the poor & powerless: in 19th century, in the US, african-American slaves, indigenous people, women, children, immigrants". And before you say it, infringement of the freedom of contract is not protection of the powerless. What helped those people is, ultimately, the bill of rights.

 

[Exorcet]

That's just projection on the part of libertarians.

How so? What in a democracy protects people's rights? There is nothing in a pure democracy that does that. If 51% of the people want to enslave 49%, it happens. This is not the story of slavery in the US, but democracy did not help the situation. What did help was to acknowledge the rights of slaves. By chance you can get a majority that votes the "right" way, but it's not guaranteed. Just look at all the debate surrounding gay rights recently. Many of these debates shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Yet the minority groups victimized by law had to fight long and hard to overturn majority power.

Democracy has proved a very successful form of government - or at least, better than than all the other ones. Slavery didn't exist because of democracy, it existed because a relatively small (capitalist) elite used it as a way to ensure profitability for their industry. They even successfully framed it as an issue of "freedom" from federal influence & "states rights" to convince the majority of southerners, who didn't own slaves, to fight & die to protect the elite's right to continue their slave-based industry.

Bold added by me. Take away the ability to vote people's rights away and no matter how big one side is, they can't make a case to have the government enforce bad laws. In other words, what you describe above can't happen. That doesn't solve all the problems alone of course. It has to be realized that laws will only do so much when people as a whole think one way or another, but I think it is certainly good to remove people's ability to force their will on other people.

Ultimately, you can make a democracy work (as in protecting rights) if you stay away from its pure form, but you are left with very little to vote on. Rights violations are banned, everything else is fair game. Shaping society is left to society and not the government.

 

[A2K78]

Libertarians have a tendency to extoll the 19th century US for its "freedom", suggesting that things were better then, but for myself, I agree with you: the US in the 19th century was a work in progress - it was, for most people, a pretty crappy place to live ... except for all the other countries, which were worse.

The 19th century was never a work in progress. Sure they didn't have the opportunity to enjoy the standard of living and technology of today but what made the people of that century much better than today was they lived at time when the reach of government was well contained and as a result enjoyed many personal freedoms, this oppose to today where the size, scope and reach and have gotten way out of control...the end result... many social and economic problems.

What improved it & eventually improved all the other Western countries was democracy - the ability of average citizens (commonly referred to in libertarian circles as the "mob") to exercise some control over their lives through the measures of universal suffrage, the introduction of work place regulations, unionization & collective bargaining, progressive income taxes, public education, social security etc. All these things led to a more equitable & also more prosperous society in which the rich continued to be rich, but the average citizen's quality of life also improved immensely.

I'm sorry, but the failures of progressivism:

https://mises.org/library/formlessness-progressivism

https://mises.org/library/legacy-progressivism

 

[TenEightyOne]

what made the people of that century much better than today was they lived at time when the reach of government was well contained and as a result enjoyed many personal freedoms, this oppose to today where the size, scope and reach and have gotten way out of control...the end result... many social and economic problems.

Apart from all those people who were property, of course, and the miserable standard of living for those who didn't enjoy prosperity. You're talking out of your hat. People aren't a paragraph in a textbook.