CDZ redistribution of wealth

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by there4eyeM, Feb 7, 2015.

  1. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,618
    Thanks Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    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?
     
  2. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,618
    Thanks Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    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.
     
  3. SingleVoyce
    Offline

    SingleVoyce Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    131
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Ratings:
    +49
    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?
     
  4. DonaldFG
    Offline

    DonaldFG VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    268
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +111
    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.
     
  5. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,618
    Thanks Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    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.
     
  6. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,618
    Thanks Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    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.
     
  7. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    "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?
     
  8. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,618
    Thanks Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2016

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

sharon tirabassi