Wealth inequality is not the "natural" result of capitalism

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not to derail but wealth inequality is different from wealth insecurity. When the latter becomes the issue is when things start to change, and I can see that change coming in the U.S. People just aren't desperate enough - yet. But like I said, that day is coming.

The problem is that the prosperity genie is out of the bottle, IOW the old adage that man does not live by bread alone has been experienced and that is not a memory that is easily erased. It's why FDR was ever elected.

And still people continue to freely cast their ballots in favor of lowering their own wages, in order to vote with God against all of the freeloaders and the sodomites and the druggies and the brown and black people and the illegal aliens and the people who want to take away all of the guns.

I could not have stated it anymore eloquently, accurately or succinctly. Without soup kitchens and migrants, however, I doubt we'll ever see the return of someone like FDR. We're more likely to see someone like David Duke.

Americans are fat and happy, even if they're poor, living on future wealth they've borrowed from themselves, all convinced they're billionaires. What with multiple fleets of aircraft carriers kicking ass all across the globe - the ultimate national sport - they know they're god's gift to the planet. Bread and circus...

 

[SimpleDon]

The problem with a statement such as:



is that all results of capitalism is the result of the fiscal policies of the government and there is nothing natural about any possible result.

It's the natural result of people having differing approaches to money.

Over time the savers will well outpace the spenders. That's not government policy.

And consider Israel--it started with near equality. Now less than three generations later we see the same sort of distribution as everywhere else.

Israel has nearly the same average wealth as the median wealth. #19 and #20, that is almost exact equity.

Your statement about different approaches to money and savers out pacing spenders has no real explanatory force as to why the differences are due to something other than government policies. It approaches babble. What different approaches to money?

Some of these countries don't intentionally suppress wages by suppressing unions the way that we do, for example. Does this affect the income distribution? I say that it does. Is it government policy in the US to suppress the power of the unions, to make it harder for the unions to gain shops? I say that it is. What say you?

I lived and worked in Germany. They have government policies in place to negotiate wage rates for entire industries to establish the same wage rates for the same workers in all of the competing companies in the country. Does this result in higher wages in Germany for workers and less income and wealth inequity? I say that it does. What say you

The German retirement system is set up to provide retirees with an average of 60% of their working wage. This compares to Social Security providing an average of about 25%. Does this lower income and wealth inequity in Germany? I say that it does. Not only does it provide more money but Germans retire much earlier than Americans by nearly four years. Does this help to lower the income and the wealth inequity in Germany? I say that it does, the fewer years of work means that younger workers are promoted faster and they earn more at a younger age relatively compared to Americans.

Can you provide the same type of specificity for your "natural result of people having different approaches to money?" Or are we going to just have to accept that you have a low burden of proof for support for your biases?

And what about the question of the explanations that we hear from conservatives justifying the current high level of income and wealth inequity. They tell us that it is because of structural changes in capitalism over the last thirty years, not because of the government policies that were intended to work by increasing the income and the wealth inequity. Do you believe that these explanations are valid? Are there structural changes in capitalism as they say? Structural changes that apparently only affect capitalism in the US and Sweden? (I don't know anything about Sweden. I am pretty familiar with the US, Canada and Germany. I lived and worked in those countries for extended lengths of time.) They tell us that these structural changes include education, globalization, etc.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that in general that government economic policies can affect the income distribution of a country?

If so why do you believe that government policies aren't the explanation for the different income and wealth distributions in these 20 countries? It goes without saying that they have different fiscal policies. Feel free to use my examples from Germany of policies that are different from the US's policies to explain why these differences won't result in different income distributions. At least compared to the and wealth distribution warping power of, how did you put it, "differing approaches to money."

If you don't believe that the economic fiscal policies of a country can affect the income distribution of a country then can you explain conservatives enthusiasm for supply side economics thirty years ago? These policies relied on changing the US's income distribution in order to work, which you don't believe that they did, right?

 

[arkirk]

What Marx was describing in Das Capital was a resultant of people doing what they felt they should do for their own good in a milieu that had not thought of society as a whole. Capitalism actually does not exist as anything but a Chimera and an ideal propounded after the fact. Capitalism is not some clearly defined system of governance or of market rules. It instead is no more and no less than the creation of justification for the accumulation of wealth in the hands of people who proudly call themselves Capitalists.

It does not deal with any social or environmental problem. It focuses on symbolic wealth instead of the welfare of society at large hence it is not a formula for governance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have not proven your case. Just because there are differences doesn't prove that they are caused by government policies that cause them. You could equally be looking at the difference between natural and government policies meant to tear down the rich.

And the data is bogus anyway--note Switzerland in the #1 position. Really now? That's foreign money!

And what about Sweden--nearly the same pattern as the US.

Why do you think that there are differences in the relative amounts of wealth inequity? You don't believe that the fact that thirty years ago we instituted economic fiscal policies to intentionally increase the incomes of the wealthy to supposedly increase investment resulted in the increase in the incomes of the wealthy? That supply side economic policies failed to increase the incomes of the wealthy but some other mysterious and unknown economic factor did cause the incomes of the wealthy to increase?

The problem is that nothing here allows you to distinguish between two cases:

1) The US is deliberately increasing inequality, the others represent neutral.

2) The other countries are deliberately decreasing inequality, we represent neutral.

You are simply assuming case #1 without any evidence.

And you didn't even address the fact that the Swiss data is obviously wrong, thus showing their yardsticks aren't very good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the natural result of people having differing approaches to money.

Over time the savers will well outpace the spenders. That's not government policy.

And consider Israel--it started with near equality. Now less than three generations later we see the same sort of distribution as everywhere else.

Israel has nearly the same average wealth as the median wealth. #19 and #20, that is almost exact equity.

Israel still has the haves and the have nots.

Your statement about different approaches to money and savers out pacing spenders has no real explanatory force as to why the differences are due to something other than government policies. It approaches babble. What different approaches to money?

Huh? You're not even addressing it. Those who save obviously will have more in the long run than those who spend.

Some of these countries don't intentionally suppress wages by suppressing unions the way that we do, for example. Does this affect the income distribution? I say that it does. Is it government policy in the US to suppress the power of the unions, to make it harder for the unions to gain shops? I say that it is. What say you?

The US suppress unions? We just don't support them as much as some other countries. If we were suppressing them we certainly wouldn't have laws protecting them! Also, without specific exemptions written into US law unions would by their nature be criminal enterprises.

I lived and worked in Germany. They have government policies in place to negotiate wage rates for entire industries to establish the same wage rates for the same workers in all of the competing companies in the country. Does this result in higher wages in Germany for workers and less income and wealth inequity? I say that it does. What say you

Such measures are about keeping the inferior workers out of the labor force or out of the profession. As such the harm isn't obvious but it's certainly there.

Can you provide the same type of specificity for your "natural result of people having different approaches to money?" Or are we going to just have to accept that you have a low burden of proof for support for your biases?

Are you telling me you haven't seen this around you? The savers generally have enough, the spenders are frequently in financial trouble.

 

[Bronzeage]

The problem with a statement such as:



is that all results of capitalism is the result of the fiscal policies of the government and there is nothing natural about any possible result.

It's the natural result of people having differing approaches to money.

Over time the savers will well outpace the spenders. That's not government policy.

And consider Israel--it started with near equality. Now less than three generations later we see the same sort of distribution as everywhere else.

There's that word "natural" again, as if money grows on trees.

Seriously, do you really believe John D. Rockefeller became the richest man in his time because he was thrifty?

Whether Israel started at near equality( a dubious statement), or not, the people who have wealth also have greater access to the people who make the laws which determine how much of the increase in wealth a corporation must share with the workers who helped create it. This is accounts for why wealth is accumulates in few hands, not some unseen force which pushes money toward people the way the moon pushes the high tide up on the beach,

 

[Underseer]

It's the natural result of people having differing approaches to money.Over time the savers will well outpace the spenders. That's not government policy.

And consider Israel--it started with near equality. Now less than three generations later we see the same sort of distribution as everywhere else.

There's that word "natural" again, as if money grows on trees.

Well, not trees exactly, but it's the result of people being harder working, intellectually superior, and morally superior. That's why the aristocracy deserves to take away wealth and political power from the undeserving masses, who should thank their superiors for taking the time to step on their necks.

Seriously, do you really believe John D. Rockefeller became the richest man in his time because he was thrifty?

No, it was because he was harder-working, intellectually superior, and morally superior, and therefore completely deserving of everything he has. Obviously, you're just jealous because you hate our freedom.

Whether Israel started at near equality( a dubious statement), or not, the people who have wealth also have greater access to the people who make the laws which determine how much of the increase in wealth a corporation must share with the workers who helped create it. This is accounts for why wealth is accumulates in few hands, not some unseen force which pushes money toward people the way the moon pushes the high tide up on the beach,

This is patently false. Our aristocratic masters are horribly oppressed by both the government and all those millions of undeserving peasants (all of whom choose not to be extremely wealthy). Because you are jealous of your betters, you want to punish them for being superior to you, thus proving that you deserve your place in the world, you worthless peon! On the off chance that a member of the aristocracy read your post and became emotionally distressed, we should immediately pass laws lowering taxes again so that they can afford to buy more senators. The current status quo is clearly intolerable to anyone who cares about freedom. [/conservolibertarian]