CDZ redistribution of wealth

[Andylusion]

Really.....

The money that I earn in my pay check, is my property. The government confiscates it and gives it to people who have not earned it. If I refuse to pay, men with guns show up, and drag me off to jail.

Socialism most certainly does require the giving up of property rights. If you doubt that theory, just test it. Refuse to pay medicare taxes. See what happens.

I don't disagree with you on that. We probably should not have a tax based on income; this may even be unconstitutional. But, we are stuck with it for now.

However, socialism in general does not require an income tax any more than capitalism. This is why citizens should control their government, rather than elected officials given free reign.

Which country in the world, at in point in history, did not require taxation of the public to support a socialist system?

How exactly would you claim that even works?

What socialized system doesn't require anything to be taken?

 

[Andylusion]

What's funny is in reality pure unregulated capitalism redistributes all the wealth to the 1%. It would be wonderful if at least 10-15% of this country could have a chance to open up a business and create/hold on to wealth.

Actually, pure, unregulated capitalism would result in the wealth concentrating in the hands of far less than 1%. Is there anybody who actually believes that pure, unregulated capitalism is a workable system?

No evidence to support such a claim. Tons that contradict it.

I'm not familiar with this contradictory evidence. Can you provide me with a reference?

Pretty much everywhere. Haiti, USSR, Cuba, Egypt, Switzerland. Everywhere in the world could be used a counter evidence to your claim.

Now obviously, there is 100% pure capitalist system, and there isn't any 100% pure socialist system. Even Communist Russia got 1/4th of their food from capitalist for-profit farms, because Communist collective farms sucked so bad, they couldn't even feed their own workers, let alone export food as they had in the years leading up to the revolution.

But take Haiti. Haiti has horrible anti-capitalist laws, that don't even respect property. It is hiddeously difficult just to get clear title on property in Haiti. Which is why 5 years later, and billions of aid dollars flowing into Haiti, they still haven't rebuilt large sections of even the capital city.

Contrast that with the wealthy government elite of Haiti. If you look at the top 1% of Haiti, all of them are either in government, connected to government, or family of government. Socialism at it's finest.

Cuba, same thing. Egypt, same thing.

Do even know why the the Arab spring happened? Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia was operating a vegetable cart, without proper license or permit. Because his act of unregulated capitalism was illegal.... they confiscated his cart. That's when he went to the police station and set himself on fire. His family would starve without him able to sell the vegetables his family grew.

Regulation is what allowed only those members of the government to sell their products, while preventing anyone else.

Then when you look at the opposite side..... Switzerland, Estonia, Hong Kong, Singapore. Places where more people share in the wealth of the country.

Did you know Switzerland is one of the top least regulated, most capitalist countries in the world? Corporate tax rate of 8.5%, tariffs on imported goods nearly 0%, freedom of investment, and strong property right protections. Switzerland is ranked 5th, on the economic freedom index, compared to the US at 12th.

Based on the relative comparison of dozens of different countries, with varying degrees of socialism, and capitalism, clearly the more capitalist the country is, the more people can share in the wealth. The less capitalists it is, the less they share in the wealth.

None of that addresses the question I asked. Where is your evidence that the logical outcome of a pure capitalist system is not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few people? As you noted, there is no pure capitalist system in existence so we are talking only theory here. The whole point of capitalism is to acquire capital. The most efficient capitalists in such a system will eventually accumulate all of the capital and there is no incentive for them to distribute it or to allow others to take any of theirs. Pure logic.

You: "Pure Capitalism would result in X"
Me: "No it would not, and there is no pure Capitalist system"
You: "If there is no pure capitalist system... then you can't say it wouldn't result in X"

Logical failure..... If there is no pure Capitalist system, then how can you claim definitively that it would result in X?

I laid out my case, in what I thought was a clear manor.

Every system that marches towards socialism, the wealth is concentrated more in the hands of the few, while the rest are in poverty.

Every system that marches towards Capitalism, the wealth filters down to the rest of the public.

Based on the loads of evidence from around the world, and throughout history, there is every reason to conclude the trend would continue to a more pure capitalist system.

Moreover..... you want talk about theory, ok....

Capital is dynamic. Wealth is dynamic. This idea that one person can confiscate all Capital / wealth, is illogical, because Capital / wealth is created and destroyed on a daily basis.

Also, you can't assume that one person can manage everything. Or even a group of people.
People have various skills and abilities. One may be suited for a particular purpose, while another is not.

Take Snapple for instance. Snapple was built up by three guys, in 1972. In 1994 they sold it to Quaker Oats for $1.4 Billion. But Quaker Oats ran the product into the ground, and by 1997, sold it to another company for just $300 Million. The new company rebuilt the brand, and it's going strong again.

One company, or group, or individual, can't run everything equally effectively.

Lastly, you also ignore the fact that Capitalism allows innovation. Walmart was built during a time when massive national retail chains already existed, and had been around for decades. But Walmart was able to beat all of them, because of innovations in supply and management, such as cross-docking. A simple concept that drastically cut costs.

And as a side note.... just in general it's impossible to force people in a Capitalist system, to give up their wealth. There are hundreds of stories about people approached by large companies, and refused them. Legend has it that Steve Jobs was approached by Intel, when he was still building computers in a garage. Steve of course refused, and Apple Computer was born.

Some people refuse to sell their business, because "It's my business". And no amount of money is enough to convince otherwise.

This idea that under pure Capitalism, everything would be owned by the few elite, is ridiculous.

 

[SingleVoyce]

Actually, pure, unregulated capitalism would result in the wealth concentrating in the hands of far less than 1%. Is there anybody who actually believes that pure, unregulated capitalism is a workable system?

No evidence to support such a claim. Tons that contradict it.

I'm not familiar with this contradictory evidence. Can you provide me with a reference?

Pretty much everywhere. Haiti, USSR, Cuba, Egypt, Switzerland. Everywhere in the world could be used a counter evidence to your claim.

Now obviously, there is 100% pure capitalist system, and there isn't any 100% pure socialist system. Even Communist Russia got 1/4th of their food from capitalist for-profit farms, because Communist collective farms sucked so bad, they couldn't even feed their own workers, let alone export food as they had in the years leading up to the revolution.

But take Haiti. Haiti has horrible anti-capitalist laws, that don't even respect property. It is hiddeously difficult just to get clear title on property in Haiti. Which is why 5 years later, and billions of aid dollars flowing into Haiti, they still haven't rebuilt large sections of even the capital city.

Contrast that with the wealthy government elite of Haiti. If you look at the top 1% of Haiti, all of them are either in government, connected to government, or family of government. Socialism at it's finest.

Cuba, same thing. Egypt, same thing.

Do even know why the the Arab spring happened? Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia was operating a vegetable cart, without proper license or permit. Because his act of unregulated capitalism was illegal.... they confiscated his cart. That's when he went to the police station and set himself on fire. His family would starve without him able to sell the vegetables his family grew.

Regulation is what allowed only those members of the government to sell their products, while preventing anyone else.

Then when you look at the opposite side..... Switzerland, Estonia, Hong Kong, Singapore. Places where more people share in the wealth of the country.

Did you know Switzerland is one of the top least regulated, most capitalist countries in the world? Corporate tax rate of 8.5%, tariffs on imported goods nearly 0%, freedom of investment, and strong property right protections. Switzerland is ranked 5th, on the economic freedom index, compared to the US at 12th.

Based on the relative comparison of dozens of different countries, with varying degrees of socialism, and capitalism, clearly the more capitalist the country is, the more people can share in the wealth. The less capitalists it is, the less they share in the wealth.

None of that addresses the question I asked. Where is your evidence that the logical outcome of a pure capitalist system is not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few people? As you noted, there is no pure capitalist system in existence so we are talking only theory here. The whole point of capitalism is to acquire capital. The most efficient capitalists in such a system will eventually accumulate all of the capital and there is no incentive for them to distribute it or to allow others to take any of theirs. Pure logic.

You: "Pure Capitalism would result in X"
Me: "No it would not, and there is no pure Capitalist system"
You: "If there is no pure capitalist system... then you can't say it wouldn't result in X"

Logical failure..... If there is no pure Capitalist system, then how can you claim definitively that it would result in X?

I laid out my case, in what I thought was a clear manor.

Every system that marches towards socialism, the wealth is concentrated more in the hands of the few, while the rest are in poverty.

Every system that marches towards Capitalism, the wealth filters down to the rest of the public.

Based on the loads of evidence from around the world, and throughout history, there is every reason to conclude the trend would continue to a more pure capitalist system.

Moreover..... you want talk about theory, ok....

Capital is dynamic. Wealth is dynamic. This idea that one person can confiscate all Capital / wealth, is illogical, because Capital / wealth is created and destroyed on a daily basis.

Also, you can't assume that one person can manage everything. Or even a group of people.
People have various skills and abilities. One may be suited for a particular purpose, while another is not.

Take Snapple for instance. Snapple was built up by three guys, in 1972. In 1994 they sold it to Quaker Oats for $1.4 Billion. But Quaker Oats ran the product into the ground, and by 1997, sold it to another company for just $300 Million. The new company rebuilt the brand, and it's going strong again.

One company, or group, or individual, can't run everything equally effectively.

Lastly, you also ignore the fact that Capitalism allows innovation. Walmart was built during a time when massive national retail chains already existed, and had been around for decades. But Walmart was able to beat all of them, because of innovations in supply and management, such as cross-docking. A simple concept that drastically cut costs.

And as a side note.... just in general it's impossible to force people in a Capitalist system, to give up their wealth. There are hundreds of stories about people approached by large companies, and refused them. Legend has it that Steve Jobs was approached by Intel, when he was still building computers in a garage. Steve of course refused, and Apple Computer was born.

Some people refuse to sell their business, because "It's my business". And no amount of money is enough to convince otherwise.

This idea that under pure Capitalism, everything would be owned by the few elite, is ridiculous.

You're missing the point. In order to have a reasonable discussion about the role of government in a capitalist system, you have to understand what the result would be if there were no controls at all on such a system. Certainly capital is dynamic and can be created but what forces would cause the people who create that capital to share it with anyone else? Furthermore, once individuals have created and acquired capital, those individuals have a great advantage over those who do not possess capital in their ability to create more capital.

As for the independent entrepreneurs - in a system with no external controls, what would prevent the larger capitalists from producing the same product and selling it at a loss until the entrepreneurs go bankrupt?

 

[DonaldFG]

Which country in the world, at in point in history, did not require taxation of the public to support a socialist system?

How exactly would you claim that even works?

What socialized system doesn't require anything to be taken?

Citizens must support their government somehow. I didn't say no tax is required. But there are other ways to provide revenue to the government rather than an income tax. I am not an expert on what other countries are doing. We are just debating what could be done. For one thing, our Constitution mentions a tax. I believe it is called an excise tax. Another tax mentioned often is a small transfer tax on stock transactions. The citizenry would not even notice such a tax, but it would provide billions in revenue.

Note that such taxes could support any kind of government structure. It would not matter so long as the people were in control, and not some minority elite.

 

[Andylusion]

No evidence to support such a claim. Tons that contradict it.

I'm not familiar with this contradictory evidence. Can you provide me with a reference?

Pretty much everywhere. Haiti, USSR, Cuba, Egypt, Switzerland. Everywhere in the world could be used a counter evidence to your claim.

Now obviously, there is 100% pure capitalist system, and there isn't any 100% pure socialist system. Even Communist Russia got 1/4th of their food from capitalist for-profit farms, because Communist collective farms sucked so bad, they couldn't even feed their own workers, let alone export food as they had in the years leading up to the revolution.

But take Haiti. Haiti has horrible anti-capitalist laws, that don't even respect property. It is hiddeously difficult just to get clear title on property in Haiti. Which is why 5 years later, and billions of aid dollars flowing into Haiti, they still haven't rebuilt large sections of even the capital city.

Contrast that with the wealthy government elite of Haiti. If you look at the top 1% of Haiti, all of them are either in government, connected to government, or family of government. Socialism at it's finest.

Cuba, same thing. Egypt, same thing.

Do even know why the the Arab spring happened? Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia was operating a vegetable cart, without proper license or permit. Because his act of unregulated capitalism was illegal.... they confiscated his cart. That's when he went to the police station and set himself on fire. His family would starve without him able to sell the vegetables his family grew.

Regulation is what allowed only those members of the government to sell their products, while preventing anyone else.

Then when you look at the opposite side..... Switzerland, Estonia, Hong Kong, Singapore. Places where more people share in the wealth of the country.

Did you know Switzerland is one of the top least regulated, most capitalist countries in the world? Corporate tax rate of 8.5%, tariffs on imported goods nearly 0%, freedom of investment, and strong property right protections. Switzerland is ranked 5th, on the economic freedom index, compared to the US at 12th.

Based on the relative comparison of dozens of different countries, with varying degrees of socialism, and capitalism, clearly the more capitalist the country is, the more people can share in the wealth. The less capitalists it is, the less they share in the wealth.

None of that addresses the question I asked. Where is your evidence that the logical outcome of a pure capitalist system is not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few people? As you noted, there is no pure capitalist system in existence so we are talking only theory here. The whole point of capitalism is to acquire capital. The most efficient capitalists in such a system will eventually accumulate all of the capital and there is no incentive for them to distribute it or to allow others to take any of theirs. Pure logic.

You: "Pure Capitalism would result in X"
Me: "No it would not, and there is no pure Capitalist system"
You: "If there is no pure capitalist system... then you can't say it wouldn't result in X"

Logical failure..... If there is no pure Capitalist system, then how can you claim definitively that it would result in X?

I laid out my case, in what I thought was a clear manor.

Every system that marches towards socialism, the wealth is concentrated more in the hands of the few, while the rest are in poverty.

Every system that marches towards Capitalism, the wealth filters down to the rest of the public.

Based on the loads of evidence from around the world, and throughout history, there is every reason to conclude the trend would continue to a more pure capitalist system.

Moreover..... you want talk about theory, ok....

Capital is dynamic. Wealth is dynamic. This idea that one person can confiscate all Capital / wealth, is illogical, because Capital / wealth is created and destroyed on a daily basis.

Also, you can't assume that one person can manage everything. Or even a group of people.
People have various skills and abilities. One may be suited for a particular purpose, while another is not.

Take Snapple for instance. Snapple was built up by three guys, in 1972. In 1994 they sold it to Quaker Oats for $1.4 Billion. But Quaker Oats ran the product into the ground, and by 1997, sold it to another company for just $300 Million. The new company rebuilt the brand, and it's going strong again.

One company, or group, or individual, can't run everything equally effectively.

Lastly, you also ignore the fact that Capitalism allows innovation. Walmart was built during a time when massive national retail chains already existed, and had been around for decades. But Walmart was able to beat all of them, because of innovations in supply and management, such as cross-docking. A simple concept that drastically cut costs.

And as a side note.... just in general it's impossible to force people in a Capitalist system, to give up their wealth. There are hundreds of stories about people approached by large companies, and refused them. Legend has it that Steve Jobs was approached by Intel, when he was still building computers in a garage. Steve of course refused, and Apple Computer was born.

Some people refuse to sell their business, because "It's my business". And no amount of money is enough to convince otherwise.

This idea that under pure Capitalism, everything would be owned by the few elite, is ridiculous.

You're missing the point. In order to have a reasonable discussion about the role of government in a capitalist system, you have to understand what the result would be if there were no controls at all on such a system. Certainly capital is dynamic and can be created but what forces would cause the people who create that capital to share it with anyone else? Furthermore, once individuals have created and acquired capital, those individuals have a great advantage over those who do not possess capital in their ability to create more capital.

As for the independent entrepreneurs - in a system with no external controls, what would prevent the larger capitalists from producing the same product and selling it at a loss until the entrepreneurs go bankrupt?

But that the whole problem. You are making assumptions of what would happen under a pure capitalist system.... and that's all they are... assumptions.

You don't know. That's why you have to go to these unsupportable theoretical scenarios. What happens if Company X produces the exact same product, but sells it at loss.

A: The company goes out of business.
B: The companies shareholders see they are selling product at a loss, and force the management to change.
C: The competition leaves the market, and they raise the price.

By your logic, there should only be one company for every product on the face of the planet. Yet we have dozens of auto manufacturers, dozens of appliance makers, dozens of tech companies, nearly every product has dozens of makers.

You realize there are nearly a HUNDRED of manufactures for INK PENS??!? Just INK PENS! Why didn't the manufacture in Japan, Zebra Pens, flood the market with pens at 10¢ selling at a loss until they were the only manufacture in the world, and then sell each pen for $12,000!?

Because your theory is bonkers. Nice fun little debate class exercise.... ZERO relation to reality.

Do you know what I do for a living right now? I build computers. You know, case, hard drive, motherboard, CPU, wires..... computer. How many massive computer companies are there? HP, Acer, Dell, Apple, IBM, Lenovo.... and on and on and on.

We still have a market. We build custom computers. And by the way, the company was started by an immigrant who came here with NOTHING.

Let me explain how this works. Everyone has capital. Everyone. You own, your own labor. Labor, is capital.

I can take you to a restaurant that was opened by a Mexican immigrant, who worked as at a restaurant. He worked. He saved. He learned to cook. He saved. He then opened his own store, and now he has tons of money, and I think he's planning to open a second location last I heard.

How can this be? He had no education, no capital, nothing. How can he do this?

It is not possible for you to have a capitalist based system, where no one can create and build wealth.

I know a guy who worked a menial job, bought painting supplies, and now paints custom cups. Makes tons painting designs on metal cups. People buy em.

At my last job, there was this old fogey there. He swept the floors, and emptied the trash. He makes $60K plus a year, depending on how much he works, which is entirely up to him. He told me how he started. He walked into a car dealership, and saw they had a mop and bucket in the corner. He asked the manager to come out, and he just grabbed there mop and bucket and started cleaning the floors. Didn't even really try and sell him. When he got down, the manager told him he pay him X amount every week to clean all their show room floors.

He saved some money, got his own cleaning supplies, and went around business to business, mopping their floors for free. Soon he had a list of clients, and was making money hand over fist.... no time clock, no schedule. Now that he was older, and had socked away 3/4 a million in his IRA... he was just down this client and one other.

Now according to your view, that should be impossible. He started off with zero capital. Not even a mop or bucket.

My point to you is, you are trying to have a discussion based on theory, that doesn't reflect the real world. This is the real world.

 

[Andylusion]

Which country in the world, at in point in history, did not require taxation of the public to support a socialist system?

How exactly would you claim that even works?

What socialized system doesn't require anything to be taken?

Citizens must support their government somehow. I didn't say no tax is required. But there are other ways to provide revenue to the government rather than an income tax. I am not an expert on what other countries are doing. We are just debating what could be done. For one thing, our Constitution mentions a tax. I believe it is called an excise tax. Another tax mentioned often is a small transfer tax on stock transactions. The citizenry would not even notice such a tax, but it would provide billions in revenue.

Note that such taxes could support any kind of government structure. It would not matter so long as the people were in control, and not some minority elite.

Right, but the Constitution envisioned a government limited to the specific enumerated powers. Protecting the nation, making treaties, enforcement of the law.

Under the constitution, taxing of trade, was more than enough to provide revenue for the specific duties assigned to the Federal Government.

In fact, at some point in the 1800s, the Federal government actually tariffs on imports, not to spur growth or trade, but simply because they felt they were collecting too much money, and they didn't need anymore to cover their Federal Government duties.

But of course, this is before the socialist infestation under FDR. This is before they thought government was not just there to keep the land safe and under the rule of law... but now it's there to somehow fix the lives of individuals.

You can't do socialism... socialist insecurity, and medicare, and subsidies, and food stamps, and on and on and on, with just money from trade tariffs. Can't do it. Not possible.

So now we have to confiscate people property, and take their income, and their land, and their investments... to pay for all these socialists programs. And it's not working.

 

[320 Years of History]

....
In fact, at some point in the 1800s, the Federal government actually [lowered] tariffs on imports, not to spur growth or trade, but simply because they felt they were collecting too much money, and they didn't need anymore to cover their Federal Government duties.

....

"At some point?" Could you be somewhat more precise and cite a specific event in history? Is it the Walker Tariff, or perhaps the Tariff of 1842 or Tariff of 1857, that you have in mind?

Surely you don't expect us to just take your word for it that the tariff to which you referred was lowered predominantly, if at all, because the government's managers felt the government was "collecting too much money?" The tariffs noted above are the ones I recall off the top of my head and nothing that I recall about them suggests any one of them was repealed ("lowered") "simply because" legislators felt it was "collecting too much money." Perhaps you have a different tariff in mind?

 

[Andylusion]

....
In fact, at some point in the 1800s, the Federal government actually [lowered] tariffs on imports, not to spur growth or trade, but simply because they felt they were collecting too much money, and they didn't need anymore to cover their Federal Government duties.

....

"At some point?" Could you be somewhat more precise and cite a specific event in history? Is it the Walker Tariff, or perhaps the Tariff of 1842 or Tariff of 1857, that you have in mind?

Surely you don't expect us to just take your word for it that the tariff to which you referred was lowered predominantly, if at all, because the government's managers felt the government was "collecting too much money?" The tariffs noted above are the ones I recall off the top of my head and nothing that I recall about them suggests any one of them was repealed ("lowered") "simply because" legislators felt it was "collecting too much money." Perhaps you have a different tariff in mind?

I didn't say lowered. I think they may have raised the tariff knowing it would kill economic growth, and lower their revenue, because they were collecting too much money. Trying to remember where I read it. Either a book, or an economics journal. I'll try and figure out where.

I have to say though... it's odd how you have said dozens of unsupported statements with no supporting evidence, and apparently I'm supposed to take your word for it. But when I say something, suddenly, "Surely you don't expect us to just take your word for it"... hypocrite much?