Socialism

[quikshop]

tax the inheritance of wealth which of course has its multiple means of bypass too.

But that's the point.

Taxing on wealth would be a fair policy; it addresses means to pay, inheritance and contributions to society at large that enables them to retain wealth.

Taxing on income destroys social mobility as New Labour proved with their 13 years of Fabian socialism.

 

[Mr D]

But that's the point.

Taxing on wealth would be a fair policy; it addresses means to pay, inheritance and contributions to society at large that enables them to retain wealth.

Taxing on income destroys social mobility as New Labour proved with their 13 years of Fabian socialism.

Taxing on wealth - who would seek to have that sort of wealth in the UK then?
Could end up with wealthy people needing help from government or from charitable sources because they are wealthy but cash poor. Little old lady who owns a bungalow, wealth of a quarter million plus and income of a bit over a hundred pounds a week. Deciding whether to buy food or put the fire on. She's wealthy, perhaps even in the top 1%. What she doesn't have is money.

 

[Cobby]

@Cobby so why not use the more accurate word - more.

Rich people should pay more tax than poor people. They should pay more in real terms and they should pay more as a percentage. This is so that people can be supported by the state, when they cannot support themselves.

As rich people pay more tax, they should get benefits/incentives that are not available to lower rate tax payers. This could include the right to drive in bus lanes, park on double yellow lines, exclusive queues at passport control, etc

Rich people will benefit too, as the poorer people with have more to spend, money which will make it's way back to the rich people again.

See, much clearer and more honest than trying to reframe fair as meaning something else.

This is a great system if you are trying to re-establish feudalism.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Taxing on wealth - who would seek to have that sort of wealth in the UK then?
Could end up with wealthy people needing help from government or from charitable sources because they are wealthy but cash poor. Little old lady who owns a bungalow, wealth of a quarter million plus and income of a bit over a hundred pounds a week. Deciding whether to buy food or put the fire on. She's wealthy, perhaps even in the top 1%. What she doesn't have is money.

And that's the case for most people from the little old lady all the way to the billionaire. Wealth is very rarely liquid cash - its assets. How do you tax the rich on their wealth...if they don't keep a large percentage of their wealth in cash (which they don't because that would be stupid), then do you have to force them to sell property, cars, boats in order to pay the annual tax on their wealth?

 

[NickGrogan]

This is a great system if you are trying to re-establish feudalism.

Rich people paying more tax is the same a feudalism? Are you sure?

 

[Mr D]

And that's the case for most people from the little old lady all the way to the billionaire. Wealth is very rarely liquid cash - its assets. How do you tax the rich on their wealth...if they don't keep a large percentage of their wealth in cash (which they don't because that would be stupid), then do you have to force them to sell property, cars, boats in order to pay the annual tax on their wealth?

And if forcing sales then who will buy? They will be subject to the wealth tax....
So firesale price paid?

Would encourage the wealthy to move overseas and take their wealth with them. If I go to Jersey and sell my UK house to a company I set up in Jersey then what wealth can the UK government take?

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Would encourage the wealthy to move overseas and take their wealth with them. If I go to Jersey and sell my UK house to a company I set up in Jersey then what wealth can the UK government take?

Exactly. If the wealthy shelter and offshore their wealth now...just wait until they're due tax on it!

 

[Mr D]

Exactly. If the wealthy shelter and offshore their wealth now...just wait until they're due tax on it!

Leaving the remaining population to pay all the current taxes between them rather than have a major chunk paid by other people.
Demand for services won't reduce so government spending won't reduce. Just change say £30 billion to £100 billion of government income has to come from those who remain.
Income tax at 40% on amount over personal allowance, income tax at 60% where its currently 40% and so on.

Have to make up the shortfall somehow.

 

[Cobby]

Rich people paying more tax is the same a feudalism? Are you sure?

You described a class system where opportunity is based upon wealth.

:|

 

[The Byre]

This discussion reminds me of the excited clucking of chicken, because the farmer's wife has farted!

 

[Wogan May]

I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but then socialism's late to delivering on its promise so I think it's OK.

My favorite quote on this has to be the immortal Friedrich Hayek:

“If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists.”

It sounds like a really unfair burn, but it's also kinda true. Every time I see a proposal for an ideal socialist utopia, it's usually built on the assertion that people "should just act this way", and then everything will be fine.

Like "if billionaires just paid more taxes" or "if companies just made less profits" or "if the government just provided more services" then everything would straighten out. And then that never happens, because the real world is built on the constant re-evaluation of a complex web of incentives that affect over 7 billion people, each with a unique set of tolerances, desires and ambitions.

To say nothing of the economy. My favorite here, again, is the assertion by folks like Oxfam who publish stats that say "the top eight people in the world own the same as the bottom 3.5 billion" or similar, and then it's held up as an example of how tyrannical capitalism is - without any understanding as to how that wealth is created, assessed or exercised.

The rationale behind that Hayek quote, and my standing position on socialism, is that it's an ambitious idea that ignores the reality of choices, incentives, and limitations on our resources. It pretends like the spectacular failures of centrally-planned economies don't exist, and that the real enemy is the system which has reliably lifted billions more out of poverty than the promise of socialism ever did.

It's why I've largely given up debating socialists. The entire ideology proceeds from the base assertion that life is meant to be fair, and that wealth is inherently unfair, and therefore a social crime. The only place it's ever existed with great success is in science fiction.

 

[Cobby]

It's why I've largely given up debating socialists. The entire ideology proceeds from the base assertion that life is meant to be fair, and that wealth is inherently unfair, and therefore a social crime. The only place it's ever existed with great success is in science fiction.

Just going from the content of your post, the problem you're likely having debating with socialists is that you are arguing against your idea of socialism using your idea of capitalism. Both systems are prone to the same vulnerability (i.e. human intent) and you criticise socialism for it while giving capitalism a pass.

Much of your post could simply be turned on it's head and be talking about the ills of capitalism. The unfortunate truth is that neither system has existed with any great success.

 

[Noah]

This discussion reminds me of the excited clucking of chicken, because the farmer's wife has farted!

Cluck off.

 

[Mr D]

I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but then socialism's late to delivering on its promise so I think it's OK.

My favorite quote on this has to be the immortal Friedrich Hayek:



It sounds like a really unfair burn, but it's also kinda true. Every time I see a proposal for an ideal socialist utopia, it's usually built on the assertion that people "should just act this way", and then everything will be fine.

Like "if billionaires just paid more taxes" or "if companies just made less profits" or "if the government just provided more services" then everything would straighten out. And then that never happens, because the real world is built on the constant re-evaluation of a complex web of incentives that affect over 7 billion people, each with a unique set of tolerances, desires and ambitions.

To say nothing of the economy. My favorite here, again, is the assertion by folks like Oxfam who publish stats that say "the top eight people in the world own the same as the bottom 3.5 billion" or similar, and then it's held up as an example of how tyrannical capitalism is - without any understanding as to how that wealth is created, assessed or exercised.

The rationale behind that Hayek quote, and my standing position on socialism, is that it's an ambitious idea that ignores the reality of choices, incentives, and limitations on our resources. It pretends like the spectacular failures of centrally-planned economies don't exist, and that the real enemy is the system which has reliably lifted billions more out of poverty than the promise of socialism ever did.

It's why I've largely given up debating socialists. The entire ideology proceeds from the base assertion that life is meant to be fair, and that wealth is inherently unfair, and therefore a social crime. The only place it's ever existed with great success is in science fiction.

Yes, Oxfam not great for figures.
How many of the bottom 3.5 billion are children? How many are ex-students with large debts?
There will be individual pensioners who own their own home who have more wealth than over a billion people who have no wealth. Could be a couple of billion even.

True socialists will always tell you that true socialism has not yet been implemented, getting by the many times people have tried to impose socialism onto a group or a country and have it fail.
And ignoring the impact socialism and capitalism has made across the world.

 

[Wogan May]

Much of your post could simply be turned on it's head and be talking about the ills of capitalism. The unfortunate truth is that neither system has existed with any great success.

With the one notable exception that we have actual data which shows that systems of private ownership generate the most wealth. You can look it up for yourself: ourworldindata, Global Extreme Poverty statistics.

• 1910: 1.44bn of 1.75bn living in extreme poverty
• 2015: 0.7bn of 7.35bn living in extreme poverty

Increasing productivity and education leads to increased standards of living, and private ownership of assets is the greatest incentive to work hard. No socialist regime has managed to drive the same levels of productivity as the world's great capitalist regimes, and it's that productivity that has a direct impact on quality of life.

 

[Calvin Crane]

What society could do with IMO:
We do need to care more as individuals and I think a lot more from government.
We just need to stop sharing poor content consuming it and I include a lot of TV in there. Soaps for many are barometers of right and wrong. We were not designed to keep watching the needle in the haystack thinking we are all inferior (facebook extreme videos). I can tell you I have most all social media notifications turned off. I am pretty much in there a lot for work but you can filter out a lot of garbage leaving the power of the underlying system intact.

Stop supporting clickbait
Stop sharing rubbish
Share good news more
Stop sharing people dying or being killed..

 

[Wogan May]

Yes, Oxfam not great for figures.
How many of the bottom 3.5 billion are children? How many are ex-students with large debts?

Their business is feelings, not figures Remarkable coincidence that they always manage to find the worst angle on wealth, isn't it?

The reason their "top 8 own half the world" position is garbage is because it's mostly calculated in terms of paper wealth - shares and other financial instruments. Those instruments are constantly re-valued as the market moves, meaning that a simple multiple (average share price x shares) is not an accurate measure of wealth.

If Oxfam had a single honest bone in their collective bodies they would acknowledge that should any of these billionaires actually try to liquidate their holdings, they'd crash the market and the value of their stock with them.

They'd also acknowledge that the value of those shares is fairly earned - given that the most wealthiest people in the world (Bezos, Gates, etc) built their companies up by providing absolutely *insane* productivity and trade solutions to the rest of the world.

 

[Mr D]

Their business is feelings, not figures Remarkable coincidence that they always manage to find the worst angle on wealth, isn't it?

The reason their "top 8 own half the world" position is garbage is because it's mostly calculated in terms of paper wealth - shares and other financial instruments. Those instruments are constantly re-valued as the market moves, meaning that a simple multiple (average share price x shares) is not an accurate measure of wealth.

If Oxfam had a single honest bone in their collective bodies they would acknowledge that should any of these billionaires actually try to liquidate their holdings, they'd crash the market and the value of their stock with them.

They'd also acknowledge that the value of those shares is fairly earned - given that the most wealthiest people in the world (Bezos, Gates, etc) built their companies up by providing absolutely *insane* productivity and trade solutions to the rest of the world.

Yes, actual wealth meaning can spend it now on stuff is rather different than paper wealth that can go up or down by say a billion in one day - on a very good or very bad day.

 

[Mr D]

What society could do with IMO:
We do need to care more as individuals and I think a lot more from government.
We just need to stop sharing poor content consuming it and I include a lot of TV in there. Soaps for many are barometers of right and wrong. We were not designed to keep watching the needle in the haystack thinking we are all inferior (facebook extreme videos). I can tell you I have most all social media notifications turned off. I am pretty much in there a lot for work but you can filter out a lot of garbage leaving the power of the underlying system intact.

Stop supporting clickbait
Stop sharing rubbish
Share good news more
Stop sharing people dying or being killed..

As a society we do have capacity to do plenty as individuals. Here in Britain supporting charities and charity fundraising is popular. A disaster happens and people rally round.
Read up on what people did after the Manchester bombing, London terror attacks, Grenfell fire and of course disasters elsewhere.
Or the support for the poppy appeal.

Not the state aiding, not the state demanding we aid, simply people choosing to give some of their own money or raise some money / send some goods etc.

 

[Newchodge]

With the one notable exception that we have actual data which shows that systems of private ownership generate the most wealth.

But is that, of itself, sufficient? The creation of wealth which is then held as the personal property of a small number of individuals does not do a great deal to help the people who make up society. You know, that thing that Margaret Thatcher declared did not exist. The economic theory espoused by Reagan and Thatcher in the 80's was based on the 'trickle down effect' - the theory that if the wealthy elite acquired even more wealth that wealth would trickle down and everyone would benefit, The reality has been the rush up effect - the fact that if the wealthy elite acquire more wealth they keep that wealth for themselves and squirrel it away in tax havens, benefitting very few but themeselves.

Look at the effect of the economic theory in use in this country since the 2008 crash - itself evidence that capitalism has its problems.

The banks were bailed out and given money to avoid them going under. A substantial part of that money was given to their shareholders, directors and senior managers, who placed it into tax havens. Very little was used to help out the small and medium sized businesses that were struggling and going under. Indeed, at least one of the banks set up a unit whose purpose was to push struggling businesses further into debt so that the banks could steal their assets.

The inequality between rich and poor has increased enormously and the effect on the poor is substantial and horrendous. The standard of living of poor to middle income families has dropped, to the extent that there is now even a visible effect on life expectancy. Life expectancy in this country, which had been rising year on year for the last 100 odd years has not ony stalled, but has started to fall. People are dying as a result of the current economic policies.

Wealth creation is not enough of itself, but it appears to be the only result of capitalism. Equitable distribution of wealth is also necessary for it to be successful.

 

[Newchodge]

As a society we do have capacity to do plenty as individuals. Here in Britain supporting charities and charity fundraising is popular. A disaster happens and people rally round.
Read up on what people did after the Manchester bombing, London terror attacks, Grenfell fire and of course disasters elsewhere.
Or the support for the poppy appeal.

Not the state aiding, not the state demanding we aid, simply people choosing to give some of their own money or raise some money / send some goods etc.

And if you look at the figures on the source of that charitable giving, a very high proportion comes from those with little of their own.

 

[Wogan May]

the fact that if the wealthy elite acquire more wealth they keep that wealth for themselves and squirrel it away in tax havens

Cash is not wealth.

You can absolutely move cash (from profits, payouts, other windfalls, bonuses, etc) into tax havens in your personal capacity, to avoid paying local taxes on it. Yes, it's technically antisocial behavior, but the amounts involved here are far from the hundreds of billions that economies are collectively valued at.

And if you ever find yourself in a position to do this, you'll realize it's actually in your best financial interests to do so. Over time, these loopholes will eventually close (global co-operation under the FATF, etc), but for the time being, it's the optimal way to secure an inheritance for your future generations.

But you cannot move shares into a tax haven - that's physically impossible. You may as well try posting water to Africa in a cardboard box.

Wealth creation is not enough of itself, but it appears to be the only result of capitalism. Equitable distribution of wealth is also necessary for it to be successful.

Equitable distribution of wealth? Wealth is not a physical, tangible thing like cash is. Wealth is the result of a complicated equation involving ownership, perceived value, future returns, impact on productivity, etc. It's no more possible to equitably distribute wealth as it is to equitably distribute a propensity for 80-hour workweeks.

But sure - let's go with equitable distribution of money, and an extreme illustration. VisualCapitalist.com estimates the world's M2 money supply at $90.4 trillion as of 2017. Spread 100% equitably, disregarding all outstanding debt ($215 trillion) would give each of the 7 billion-odd people in the world a one-time cash lump sum of around $13'000.

If your total assets number anything above $13'000 (pension, cash, stocks, property) you'd of course be required to voluntarily sell this to someone in order to liquidate it, but then you run into the problem of who you're selling this *to*, since nobody with more than $13'000 in assets would be allowed to buy from you (they're also selling).

(But let's ignore financial physics for the sake of this thought experiment.)

First thing that happens when all the people with less than $13'000 receive their cash? They'd most likely spend it on goods and services to improve their earning potential and quality of life, and since we (mostly) live in a world of free choice, not everyone will choose to build or provide those goods and services. So the cash will rapidly accrue back to the people who do, and within a few years we're back to the status quo - having caused several major meltdowns in the process.

If it were at all possible to simply "equitably distribute wealth" and this was indeed the best route to widespread prosperity I'm pretty sure it would have been done by now.

 

[Newchodge]

First thing that happens when all the people with less than $13'000 receive their cash? They'd most likely spend it on goods and services to improve their earning potential and quality of life, and since we (mostly) live in a world of free choice, not everyone will choose to build or provide those goods and services.

That is exactly the point. It grows the economy. Incidentally, as we are in the UK it is m ore normal to talk in terms of £s than $.

 

[Cobby]

With the one notable exception that we have actual data which shows that systems of private ownership generate the most wealth. You can look it up for yourself: ourworldindata, Global Extreme Poverty statistics.

• 1910: 1.44bn of 1.75bn living in extreme poverty
• 2015: 0.7bn of 7.35bn living in extreme poverty

Increasing productivity and education leads to increased standards of living, and private ownership of assets is the greatest incentive to work hard. No socialist regime has managed to drive the same levels of productivity as the world's great capitalist regimes, and it's that productivity that has a direct impact on quality of life.

There is no capitalist regime that doesn't involve socialism in some form. There is no socialist regime that doesn't involve capitalism in some form. The data you have has no control for alternative use-cases (e.g. we did mostly capitalism and got result χ, but we can't simulate the opposite choice for comparison). Additionally you are making mono-causal (i.e. this causes that) and transitive-property assumptions about impossibly complex systems of social interaction and economic activity.

Socialists are blind to human failure in the same way capitalists are. In theory capitalism should leave zero people in poverty, but here we are, talking about how great it is that ELEVEN TIMES the UK population lives in extreme poverty.

 

[Cobby]

First thing that happens when all the people with less than $13'000 receive their cash? They'd most likely spend it on goods and services to improve their earning potential and quality of life, and since we (mostly) live in a world of free choice, not everyone will choose to build or provide those goods and services. So the cash will rapidly accrue back to the people who do, and within a few years we're back to the status quo - having caused several major meltdowns in the process.

Here it is. The long grass that ultra-capitalists always stumble into. Privilege.

The wealthy are wealthy because "obviously" they make better decisions. How else would they be wealthy? Poor people are poor because they can't make good decisions about money, so they don't deserve it.

Here's a more rational correlation for the benefits of capitalism: Capitalism was most effective at improving standards of living while the level of wealth inequality was lower. Capitalism has been less effective at raising living standards since the level of wealth inequality became so large.

Now what?

 

[Mr D]

And if you look at the figures on the source of that charitable giving, a very high proportion comes from those with little of their own.

And if you look at charitable trusts initial startup / ongoing adding to capital in lump sums and High Net Worth (HNW) donors you will find they tend to be the wealthy.

I don't think either of us would push for everyone to liquidate their assets and give it all to charity.

 

[Mr D]

Here it is. The long grass that ultra-capitalists always stumble into. Privilege.

The wealthy are wealthy because "obviously" they make better decisions. How else would they be wealthy? Poor people are poor because they can't make good decisions about money, so they don't deserve it.

Here's a more rational correlation for the benefits of capitalism: Capitalism was most effective at improving standards of living while the level of wealth inequality was lower. Capitalism has been less effective at raising living standards since the level of wealth inequality became so large.

Now what?

Ah the old 'they cannot handle their money so they deserve to be poor' fallacy.
Usually used by those who do not understand reality.

 

[Mr D]

Politics, socialism, capitalism etc.
Tongue in cheek, do not take seriously. Unless you are a cow farmer or you are Cobby.

DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office that put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous. Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So? ... It’s not your fault he didn’t stay in school. Never-the-less, ultimately you take pity on your neighbor and see that his children have milk, while you encourage him to accept responsibility for his situation and to work hard to acquire his own cows.

SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the second one. You force the 2 cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch. Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately, they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don’t know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

POLISH CORPORATION: You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

FLORIDA CORPORATION: You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking one. Some of the people who like the brown one best vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can’t figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best-looking one.

NEW YORK CORPORATION: You have fifteen million cows. You have to choose which one will be the leader of the herd, so you pick some fat cow from Arkansas.

 

[Wogan May]

They'd most likely spend it on goods and services to improve their earning potential and quality of life

Poor people are poor because they can't make good decisions about money, so they don't deserve it.

Cobby, dear, I think you're reading what you want to read, not what I'm actually writing.

What percentage of your spending goes towards improving your earning potential (education, better house, better car, better clothes, networking) and quality of life (sanitation, entertainment, food, healthcare?) I'd wager quite a large percentage, since that's the sort of trade that civilization itself is based on.

If I had said "they'd most likely spend it on drugs and sex" then yes, those would be poor financial decisions. But that's not what I said. I said that they'd spend on the same sort of things everyone else spends money on, because that's what people generally use money for.

If education and a cleaner house are bad financial decisions, then I'm really misinformed about all this.

 

[Newchodge]

Cobby, dear, I think you're reading what you want to read, not what I'm actually writing.

What percentage of your spending goes towards improving your earning potential (education, better house, better car, better clothes, networking) and quality of life (sanitation, entertainment, food, healthcare?) I'd wager quite a large percentage, since that's the sort of trade that civilization itself is based on.

If I had said "they'd most likely spend it on drugs and sex" then yes, those would be poor financial decisions. But that's not what I said. I said that they'd spend on the same sort of things everyone else spends money on, because that's what people generally use money for.

If education and a cleaner house are bad financial decisions, then I'm really misinformed about all this.

Selective quoting then arguing against an alleged opposing proposition that you actually made yourself are clear signs of a lack of belief in your own argument.

 

[Wogan May]

Selective quoting then arguing against an alleged opposing proposition that you actually made yourself are clear signs of a lack of belief in your own argument.

I really miss internet forums

 

[Cobby]

Ah the old 'they cannot handle their money so they deserve to be poor' fallacy.
Usually used by those who do not understand reality.

Yes, thanks for backing up literally what I just said.

Another great contribution, comrade.

 

[Cobby]

Cobby, dear, I think you're reading what you want to read, not what I'm actually writing.

If I had said "they'd most likely spend it on drugs and sex" then yes, those would be poor financial decisions. But that's not what I said. I said that they'd spend on the same sort of things everyone else spends money on, because that's what people generally use money for.

If education and a cleaner house are bad financial decisions, then I'm really misinformed about all this.

With all due respect, you just explicitly argued that capitalism is preferential because rich people will always be rich. Why? You claim because of their merit (in your example, they make decisions that increase their wealth, where the poor do not). It follows logically that the remainder (e.g. the poor) are not rich because of their lack of merit. You may not intend to say that, but that's what you said; that's your argument.

Your explicit and implicit assignment of value to those decisions and categorising those who would make which choice - that's the bias of your privilege and the weakness of your argument for capitalism.

Now, the privilege of your arguments aside, you skirted around the most important point - capital has mass and generates gravity (of sorts). Most people understand that you need money to make money, but concentrations of capital became far more problematic once they enabled huge disparities in income equality. Capitalism is great...but not categorically and only up to a point.

 

[Wogan May]

Ah the old 'they cannot handle their money so they deserve to be poor' fallacy.
Usually used by those who do not understand reality.

There's a wonderful anecdote I carry around for occasions like this.

South Africa has two features of daily life that aren't shared in a lot of other countries: Minibus taxis (22-seater vans usually operated by sole proprietors) and land claims (owing to all that colonization business in the 1900's).

Over 90% of historical land claims are settled in cash, and the amounts can be relatively large. One of my favorite stories involves a land claim that was settled in the Eastern Cape, at which around 100 people received a couple hundred thousand Rand each.

At the day of the claims being awarded, knowing what was about to happen, the government made sure that they had a few financial advisers present in the building, strongly advising all the recipients to speak to them and set up investment portfolios of some kind. Not everyone did - least of all an older lady who, joyously excited at her major windfall, exited the building as soon as she could, and found the nearest minibus taxi to take her home.

She was the first one there, and the driver refused to go unless the minibus was full (a common practice) so she spent R500 (2x what the driver would make on a full bus) right then and there, booking the entire bus for herself so she could go home.

One of the things very often overlooked in the "poor people cannot handle their money" conversation is that poor people have a very different set of needs, wants and priorities in their daily lives. There's also been some solid research in the humanities about how poverty literally affects people's brains (physically) and impairs the sort of long-term big-picture contextual thinking that the rest of "us" take for granted.

That woman gained nothing by spending 50x what she would normally spend on that minibus. To her, the total claim amount was eye-wateringly large, and I'm sure she felt like money would never be a problem for her again.

It's worth bearing that in mind when this topic comes up. Not everyone thinks the same, and we're beginning to prove that there are people that are incapable of longer-term thinking, through no fault of their own. Unfortunately there's no easy solution to this.

 

[Wogan May]

With all due respect, you just explicitly argued that capitalism is preferential because rich people will always be rich. Why? You claim because of their merit (in your example, they make decisions that increase their wealth, where the poor do not).

Gonna stop you right there.

My claim was that poor people and rich people are just as likely to spend money on the same things. I'll quote it again for you:

They'd most likely spend it on goods and services to improve their earning potential and quality of life

And again:

I said that they'd spend on the same sort of things everyone else spends money on, because that's what people generally use money for.

Can we first reach an agreement on what I'm actually saying vs what you're telling me I'm saying? Then we can get into the rest of your argument (unless if my basic assumptions are wrong, and spending on education and better living conditions are not precursors to productivity and greater income, in which case a lot of economists have to revise a lot of models).

Bonus points on the second post I just made, about the minibus taxi: Sometimes people make rash decisions with their money and that cannot be helped (true for poor people, rich people and ill-prepared lottery winners), but with the right approach, wealth can absolutely be generated and sustained over time, even for poor people. GiveDirectly does fantastic work in that regard.

 

[Mr D]

Yes, thanks for backing up literally what I just said.

Another great contribution, comrade.

Why thank you. I didn't intend backing you up, must have been a mistake seeing as you are usually wrong.
Even when you trot out such fallacies.

 

[Newchodge]

There's also been some solid research in the humanities about how poverty literally affects people's brains (physically) and impairs the sort of long-term big-picture contextual thinking that the rest of "us" take for granted.

You are doing it again. I realaise that you put quotation marks round us, but you mean exactly that. We are not part of the situation that you describe, because we are different. The privileged can dispassionately discuss the problems of the poor, safe in the knowledge that they will never experience those problems, because they are innately privileged and could never fall so low. Until the unexpected happens and then you stop being one of us.

 

[Mr D]

Gonna stop you right there.

My claim was that poor people and rich people are just as likely to spend money on the same things. I'll quote it again for you:



And again:



Can we first reach an agreement on what I'm actually saying vs what you're telling me I'm saying? Then we can get into the rest of your argument (unless if my basic assumptions are wrong, and spending on education and better living conditions are not precursors to productivity and greater income, in which case a lot of economists have to revise a lot of models).

Bonus points on the second post I just made, about the minibus taxi: Sometimes people make rash decisions with their money and that cannot be helped (true for poor people, rich people and ill-prepared lottery winners), but with the right approach, wealth can absolutely be generated and sustained over time, even for poor people. GiveDirectly does fantastic work in that regard.

Yes he tends to twist things to suit himself.
Amusing at times how twisted he gets over a thread. And makes some stuff up.

 

[Wogan May]

The privileged can dispassionately discuss the problems of the poor, safe in the knowledge that they will never experience those problems, because they are innately privileged and could never fall so low.

If your whole thing is that privileged people need to be aware of poverty and work towards alleviating it, surely step 1 is talking about it?

Or should privileged people just keep quiet and "stay in their lane" (popular phrase over here), since there's no way they could ever comprehend (much less contribute) to a resolution?

Unless if we're going for this narrow definition wherein the only acceptable conversation is lamenting that rich people exist, which doesn't strike me as particularly helpful.

 

[Newchodge]

My claim was that poor people and rich people are just as likely to spend money on the same things.

Then you are wrong. Poor people don't spend on education, they cannot afford to do so. They rely on the state to provide education, as is their right. Poor people do not spend on improving their quality of life, They spend on the essentials of living and, if they get a little extra money they either put it towardss paying the never-ending debt in which they find themselves, or buy themselves or, more probably, their children, a rare luxury.