Capitalism .......A force for good or A force for bad.

[I'm With Stupid]

What exactly is “equality”?

Opportunity or outcomes?

In principle, most people would say equality of opportunity, but the reality is that it's a false dichotomy that sort of betrays the individualistic nature of the philosophy. What if you spend your extra pound on your kid? Then you have immediately used your inequality of outcome to create an inequality of opportunity for the next generation. Repeat that for years, decades or even centuries, and you end up with a system where no-one can reasonably claim that they are in their position purely because of their own personal merits.

I remember reading a discussion from Singapore about the 100 year-lease rule. Basically in principle when you buy a house, you lease the land from the government and after 100 years, it reverts to the state. Someone said "how can you be expected to build generational wealth if you can't own land?" The response one "Why would it be a good idea to allow people to build generational wealth?"

The reality is that people aren't really interested in equality of opportunity. People unashamedly say that they want the best opportunities for their kids. It's rarely explicitly said, but the implication is that they want their kids to have better opportunities than everyone else's. What's the point of private schools, if not to explicitly remove equality of opportunity? It's obviously a natural instinct, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Expand it to companies rather than individual people, and you see countless companies that exploit the inequality of resources to crush fair competition.

You're never going to get complete equality, nor should it necessarily be the goal, but there certainly should be regulations that avoid inequality getting too great, because taken to its logical conclusion, that basically ends up as a return to serfdom. And the reality is that inequality has only been going one way for the past 50 years, and it's not because of the even-increasing brilliance of those at the top end being given what their talents merit.

 

[Alvin-blue-qhd]

Capitalism is not equal, because the production speed of different industries is different. Agriculture needs the longest production cycle, industry is faster than agriculture, and the financial industry has the fastest wealth creation speed. The closer you are to the financial industry, the easier it is for you to make profits.

 

[idahoblues]

I would never want to live in any communist country run by a dictator, like say North Korea where people are starving to death, or China where they have slave labour enabling them to manufacture everything cheaper than anywhere else.

You live in the west where if you study, get some qualifications like a trade or profession and work hard you can own a house, cars, have all the latest tech, stuff your house with nice furniture and appliances, go on foreign holidays, cruises. Eat whatever you want.
The system isn't perfect but it's easily the best there is.

As for Capitalists loving war, please explain Putin invading Ukraine and the one in N Korea provocating his geographical neighbours with continual missile launches.

If you hate capitalism so much perhaps you should emigrate to a country more to your liking ?

Haha

 

[ChicagoBlue]

In principle, most people would say equality of opportunity, but the reality is that it's a false dichotomy that sort of betrays the individualistic nature of the philosophy.

I don’t think it “betrays” it, but highlights it. As humans, who are we supposed to rely on, if not ourselves? Give equal opportunity, or as close to it as possible given we are not just a number on a page, and then let the individual live by their wits.

What if you spend your extra pound on your kid? Then you have immediately used your inequality of outcome to create an inequality of opportunity for the next generation. Repeat that for years, decades or even centuries, and you end up with a system where no-one can reasonably claim that they are in their position purely because of their own personal merits.

But it was EARNED by your family!

Am I not allowed to save, invest, defer my own desire to consume, so that I can assist those I love?

If so, then why would I work hard to generate excess (beyond my personal needs) rewards? Or, am I supposed to donate them to the collective?

I remember reading a discussion from Singapore about the 100 year-lease rule. Basically in principle when you buy a house, you lease the land from the government and after 100 years, it reverts to the state. Someone said "how can you be expected to build generational wealth if you can't own land?" The response one "Why would it be a good idea to allow people to build generational wealth?"

What are people afraid of? Inability? Smart work? Excess effort?

Why would I ever work hard to reward the state…beyond the already progressive taxes I’m forced to pay by working harder and smarter?

The reality is that people aren't really interested in equality of opportunity. People unashamedly say that they want the best opportunities for their kids. It's rarely explicitly said, but the implication is that they want their kids to have better opportunities than everyone else's.

Absolute bullshit…or your own personal feelings, as they certainly do not reflect mine.

What's the point of private schools, if not to explicitly remove equality of opportunity?

The point is BETTER! If public schools were the only choice, do you think it would deter those who will eventually become future winners? But, why wouldn’t anyone want better education, even if they have to pay for it? Do you drive a Yugo, wear only the cheapest clothes, etc, etc, etc, OR do you use what you have to buy the best value products, regardless of actual basic need?

It's obviously a natural instinct, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Why isn’t it?

Expand it to companies rather than individual people, and you see countless companies that exploit the inequality of resources to crush fair competition.

Doesn’t the market determine winners and losers in the market or should the state? Or whom?

You're never going to get complete equality, nor should it necessarily be the goal, but there certainly should be regulations that avoid inequality getting too great, because taken to its logical conclusion, that basically ends up as a return to serfdom. And the reality is that inequality has only been going one way for the past 50 years, and it's not because of the even-increasing brilliance of those at the top end being given what their talents merit.

Sadly, it’s hard to separate your economic equality arguments from the personal bias illustrated by your word choice.

I’m not sure who is being “given” more than than their “talents merit,” but I’m not sure I know many people who would agree to “give” others more than their talents merit, do you?

One man’s gift is another man’s earned reward, I guess?!

Never received any “gifts” from an employer, but when I don’t receive the rewards I believe my talent should earn, I take my effort elsewhere, where it might be better valued. I would hope I’d have the freedom to pursue such rewards, if I work hard to hone valuable skills or talents.

Or, maybe Utopia doesn’t want, need or appreciate hard work and talent, preferring mediocrity?

 

[madloaf]

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I don’t think it “betrays” it, but highlights it. As humans, who are we supposed to rely on, if not ourselves? Give equal opportunity, or as close to it as possible given we are not just a number on a page, and then let the individual live by their wits.

Humans are not an individual species. From the very core of our evolution, we're social. Try and genuinely live on your own wits with no help from society and see how far you get.

But it was EARNED by your family!

Yes, not by you, which is the exact point I was making. And in most cases, not even by your family. You earn more than most people in Bangladesh because of the efforts of millions of Americans before you to create a society that allows you to, not because you're so much more talented than people from Bangladesh. The extent to which you are more talented or qualified that your average rural Bangladeshi is almost certainly down to the educational opportunities you've been afforded in life. No doubt many of them paid for through the efforts of a collective through taxation (unless you went to private school).

Am I not allowed to save, invest, defer my own desire to consume, so that I can assist those I love?

If so, then why would I work hard to generate excess (beyond my personal needs) rewards? Or, am I supposed to donate them to the collective?

That's exactly what you're supposed to do. That's what taxes are. You seem to be coming at this from an all-or-nothing perspective. Communism and utter collectivist mindset is clearly ridiculous is any society bigger than tribal ones. But equally complete free reign to amass more and more resources for yourself without contributing any of that back to the society that allows you to do that is equally insane.

What are people afraid of? Inability? Smart work? Excess effort?

Why would I ever work hard to reward the state…beyond the already progressive taxes I’m forced to pay by working harder and smarter?

They might not reflect your feelings, but they are the logical progression of your argument. 'Better opportunities' can only exist in contrast to something else. And what it does is create a society where people succeed not on their own merits, but on the advantages their parents were able to give them. Now if that's what you want, fine. But don't come at people with this 'equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome' bullshit, because as soon as someone has an expensive education paid for that is inaccessible to the majority of the population, or has a business funded by their well-connected parents, or whatever it might be, there is no equality of opportunity. And that was my argument. Some people who've done well in life (through their own hard work, yes, and through the opportunities they've been given through accidents of birth) like to think everything's a meritocracy. It isn't.

The point is BETTER! If public schools were the only choice, do you think it would deter those who will eventually become future winners? But, why wouldn’t anyone want better education, even if they have to pay for it? Do you drive a Yugo, wear only the cheapest clothes, etc, etc, etc, OR do you use what you have to buy the best value products, regardless of actual basic need?

Fair enough.

Why isn’t it?

Well I wouldn't say exactly that it's not a good idea, just that it actively contributes to inequality of both opportunity and outcome. It's worth mentioning that you brought this distinction up, so you presumably thing that inequality of opportunity is a bad thing, whereas inequality of outcome is deserved. But then probe a little bit and I find that you don't really seem to have much of an issue with either. So why did you bring it up?

Doesn’t the market determine winners and losers in the market or should the state? Or whom?

The market determines winners and losers when it is properly regulated. That's why we have all sorts of rules around monopolies, companies controlling too much of a market, and so on. Because we recognise that beyond a certain level of success, fair competition is impossible and if not checked, corporation will then use their position to exploit everyone, particularly if they're selling something that everyone relies on. I didn't think this was a particularly controversial point given that literally every government on the planet has laws to prevent it from happening.

Sadly, it’s hard to separate your economic equality arguments from the personal bias illustrated by your word choice.

I’m not sure who is being “given” more than than their “talents merit,” but I’m not sure I know many people who would agree to “give” others more than their talents merit, do you?

Well yeah, perhaps 'take' would be a better choice of word in that case then. But the reality is that the income of the super rich is not typically based on reimbursement for their labour, but their ability to use what they already have to make even more money. And at that point, your main contribution to society (as measured by how much you get 'rewarded') is agreeing to lend out some of the vast resources you have built up over decades, and in many cases, generations, in exchange for interest. Again, there's nothing wrong with this in principle, it's just that if not properly regulated and taxed, it leads to an ever increasing inequality that we're seeing now.

One man’s gift is another man’s earned reward, I guess?!

Never received any “gifts” from an employer, but when I don’t receive the rewards I believe my talent should earn, I take my effort elsewhere, where it might be better valued. I would hope I’d have the freedom to pursue such rewards, if I work hard to hone valuable skills or talents.

Absolutely no issue with that. As mentioned above, at this point, it's not paid employment that's typically the issue.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Once Capitalism has reached a point where it can not grow, it eats itself and is a disaster, that is where we are now, Britain is not growing apart from population,

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Humans are not an individual species. From the very core of our evolution, we're social. Try and genuinely live on your own wits with no help from society and see how far you get.

Yes, but everyone gets the village treatment, right?

I’m not saying it doesn’t “take a village,” only that we live in the same village, so it’s not the village, is it?

Yes, not by you, which is the exact point I was making. And in most cases, not even by your family. You earn more than most people in Bangladesh because of the efforts of millions of Americans before you to create a society that allows you to, not because you're so much more talented than people from Bangladesh.

So, it’s not about a socialist or communist country, but entire globe we are discussing?? I guess I should be lucky I was born in my village and not a Bangladeshi village, then? Hmmm, how to “equalize” that in any crazy notion of “equality” anyone can imagine?!

That's exactly what you're supposed to do. That's what taxes are. You seem to be coming at this from an all-or-nothing perspective. Communism and utter collectivist mindset is clearly ridiculous is any society bigger than tribal ones. But equally complete free rein to amass more and more resources for yourself without contributing any of that back to the society that allows you to do that is equally insane.

There’s that word choice again.

I have no desire to shirk my collective responsibility to society. I merely point out that my work is taxed at a greater rate than that of someone who didn’t work as hard, long, or smart as I did in an effort to subsidize larger and larger swaths of his life so that we can be considered equal.

And, fwiw, I completely understand the need for progressive taxation, but in this discussion, one wonders why one person is taxed more than any other person…if equality is an opportunity not an outcome.

They might not reflect your feelings, but they are the logical progression of your argument. 'Better opportunities' can only exist in contrast to something else. And what it does is create a society where people succeed not on their own merits, but on the advantages their parents were able to give them. Now if that's what you want, fine. But don't come at people with this 'equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome' bullshit, because as soon as someone has an expensive education paid for that is inaccessible to the majority of the population, or has a business funded by their well-connected parents, or whatever it might be, there is no equality of opportunity. And that was my argument. Some people who've done well in life (through their own hard work, yes, and through the opportunities they've been given through accidents of birth) like to think everything's a meritocracy. It isn't.

You are talking at the margins, while I thought we were talking about the vast majority of normals.

You know what my parents left me when they died? Bills. And not dollar bills!!!

Now, forgive me for being a champion of meritocracy, whenever and wherever possible, but what’s the alternative? Someone picking and choosing winner? Based on what? Blue eyes? Green eyes? (Check out that experiment!)

Well I wouldn't say exactly that it's not a good idea, just that it actively contributes to inequality of both opportunity and outcome. It's worth mentioning that you brought this distinction up, so you presumably thing that inequality of opportunity is a bad thing, whereas inequality of outcome is deserved. But then probe a little bit and I find that you don't really seem to have much of an issue with either. So why did you bring it up?

Then I did myself a disservice.

I believe in equal opportunity whenever possible. However, when outcomes allow, I see nothing wrong with using the earned rewards in almost any way I see fit, including assisting my family in any way possible. They’re my responsibility and I accept it.

Should we remove generational wealth? If so, what do you think would happen? Do you think it would make the next generation of “winners” so different?

Do I relinquish my freedom to choose what I do with my time and money simply because I have both?

The market determines winners and losers when it is properly regulated. That's why we have all sorts of rules around monopolies, companies controlling too much of a market, and so on. Because we recognise that beyond a certain level of success, fair competition is impossible and if not checked, corporation will then use their position to exploit everyone, particularly if they're selling something that everyone relies on. I didn't think this was a particularly controversial point given that literally every government on the planet has laws to prevent it from happening.

I’m not against monopolies, but there are plenty of examples where oligopolies exist, and assume the same type metrics as a virtual monopoly.

I’m not against fair competition, individually or in business. What I’m questioning is “Who decides what’s fair? The market or the State?” To a degree, it’s the State, but only because we all agree that some things can only made fair by the State when size and influence becomes too large for society. Where that line might fall is up for healthy debate, and I respect that.

Well yeah, perhaps 'take' would be a better choice of word in that case then. But the reality is that the income of the super rich is not typically based on reimbursement for their labour, but their ability to use what they already have to make even more money. And at that point, your main contribution to society (as measured by how much you get 'rewarded') is agreeing to lend out some of the vast resources you have built up over decades, and in many cases, generations, in exchange for interest. Again, there's nothing wrong with this in principle, it's just that if not properly regulated and taxed, it leads to an ever increasing inequality that we're seeing now.

Again, we have strayed far from the normals (like us) and entered the rarefied air of the 0.01%. I prefer talking about the middle 99% of the normal distribution curve, where 99% of us reside.

Absolutely no issue with that. As mentioned above, at this point, it's not paid employment that's typically the issue.

When you fund society, you have to understand where politicians go to get money…where it is, and I certainly don’t mean the 0.01%, or even the 1%, because they fund the political machine that protects them.

Maybe that’s the problem?!

At that, I’ll thank you for the civil discussion and bow out as gracefully as one can with unresolved issues.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

It’s not perfect, but I’m not aware of any better viable alternatives.

At the individual level, we’ve all grown up around people who are hard working folk, as well as people who are absolute scrounging work shy pricks. The former tend to do better than the latter in a free market situation, which is right.

 

[yankblue]

I don't know but the unfettered Capitalism we currently have is destroying our brains, the planet, and everything on it and that seems not ideal