Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

A important aside, dblack, is "are you critical of your views on free markets?" Like, how did you arrive to your conclusions? When did you last gather research and evidence that supports your equivocation of freedom and free markets? Did you simply choose to absorb such free market ideology because it spoke to an already existing core of beliefs (which for you is clearly "individual freedom is ultimate")? Or did you weigh the alternatives views and evidence on free markets, comparing the validity/invalidity of each and decided your current views express most accurately "objective" and empirical reality?

From my perspective you appear to be a spokesperson marketing the ideological brand you prefer best instead offering critical thoughts about economic reality. So if this is actually reflective of how you think and came to your core beliefs, that you don't care to deeply challenge your equivocation of freedom and free markets, then I'm sorry to be challenging you and wasting your time. Please let me know your purpose of engaging me (I'm very eager to learn but if you are not, then I just lost my appetite). I don't want to waste your time on challenging ideas about which you do not care much to consider.

I've been down this road before gnarly. I've been reading and thinking critically about this stuff since I was in high school and I simply don't see anything new in your posts. It's the same old Marxist antipathy for individual freedom. It's an ideology that simply doesn't tolerate the 'live and let live' ethos at the core of my moral foundation, and that's why I find it unacceptable.

 

[editec]

85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.

Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality​

CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.

So YES capitalism is premised on the need for SOME wealth inequity.

But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.

 

[georgephillip]

85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.

Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality​

CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.

So YES capitalism is premised on the need for SOME wealth inequity.

But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

 

[gnarlylove]

No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.



I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.

I learned from this post that:
1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.

Please correct this flawed interpretation.

I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.

... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.

Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must enable you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.

So freedom is not being prohibited to act (ie. negative freedom)? So if it could be proved that propaganda is very real, that would mean freedom is greatly reduced to the narrow spectrum of allowable thought?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.



I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.

I learned from this post that:
1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.

Please correct this flawed interpretation.

I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.

... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.

Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must enable you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.

Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.

He has no logic.

 

[gnarlylove]

I've been down this road before gnarly. I've been reading and thinking critically about this stuff since I was in high school and I simply don't see anything new in your posts. It's the same old Marxist antipathy for individual freedom. It's an ideology that simply doesn't tolerate the 'live and let live' ethos at the core of my moral foundation, and that's why I find it unacceptable.

A very fair reply. I respect your ideology of individual freedom entirely. Since it is a core of your worldview and logically prior to most other beliefs we've discussed, I would like to address it formally. My other reply above is doing just that.

But I can't make sense of calling me Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, free competition, the whole 9 yards.

So you're labeling me but I don't perceive the due cause since the way you use it sounds as a "Marxist" one is immediately removed from relevant discussion. That's just a deceitful tactic to dismiss genuine critiques. I may disagree with your idea of individual freedom but it's not due to Marx or some deity. No, I disagree with it because I have reasons for it, I am not approaching this from some high moral ground looking down at you. I am entirely willing to concede your concept of freedom but I hope you are willing to defend as well as explain your concept of freedom, leaving unnecessary labels aside. Let's just discuss ideas and be willing to hear all manner of critique (I'd be massively excited if I am taught lessons on freedom etc.).

 

[bripat9643]

I learned from this post that:
1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.

Please correct this flawed interpretation.

I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.

... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.

Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must enable you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.

So freedom is not being prohibited to act (ie. negative freedom)? So if it could be proved that propaganda is very real, that would mean freedom is greatly reduced to the narrow spectrum of allowable thought?

No, it would only prove that propaganda exists. No one has ever denied that propaganda exists. However, humans have the capacity for rational thought. Aside from leftists, they aren't automatons who meekly and blindly obey whatever the television or radio tells them to do.

 

[bripat9643]

I learned from this post that:
1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.

Please correct this flawed interpretation.

I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.

... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.

Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must enable you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.

Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.

He has no logic.

Now you're catching on. Gnarly just spouts an endless stream of Marxist talking points. There's no logic behind them. They sound plausible but the minute you start comparing them with reality they fall apart.

 

[bripat9643]

I've been down this road before gnarly. I've been reading and thinking critically about this stuff since I was in high school and I simply don't see anything new in your posts. It's the same old Marxist antipathy for individual freedom. It's an ideology that simply doesn't tolerate the 'live and let live' ethos at the core of my moral foundation, and that's why I find it unacceptable.

A very fair reply. I respect your ideology of individual freedom entirely. Since it is a core of your worldview and logically prior to most other beliefs we've discussed, I would like to address it formally. My other reply above is doing just that.

But I can't make sense of calling me Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, free competition, the whole 9 yards.

So you're labeling me but I don't perceive the due cause since the way you use it sounds as a "Marxist" one is immediately removed from relevant discussion. That's just a deceitful tactic to dismiss genuine critiques. I may disagree with your idea of individual freedom but it's not due to Marx or some deity. No, I disagree with it because I have reasons for it, I am not approaching this from some high moral ground looking down at you. I am entirely willing to concede your concept of freedom but I hope you are willing to defend as well as explain your concept of freedom, leaving unnecessary labels aside. Let's just discuss ideas and be willing to hear all manner of critique (I'd be massively excited if I am taught lessons on freedom etc.).

Most of your ideas are directly or indirectly attributable to Marx. They are definitely leftist and anti-capitalists. Hence, you fit the common understanding of the term "Marxist."

 

[Dot Com]

neo liberal capitalism (what Establishment-types of both parties are supporting because they're bought-off by the banksters) is the absolute worst:

Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer

Like Friedman, Piketty is a man for the times. For 1970s anxieties about inflation substitute today's concerns about the emergence of the plutocratic rich and their impact on economy and society. Piketty is in no doubt, as he indicates in an interview in today's Observer New Review, that the current level of rising wealth inequality, set to grow still further, now imperils the very future of capitalism. He has proved it.

 

[gnarlylove]

85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.

Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality​

CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.

So YES capitalism is premised on the need for SOME wealth inequity.

But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.

Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.

 

[gnarlylove]

I've been down this road before gnarly. I've been reading and thinking critically about this stuff since I was in high school and I simply don't see anything new in your posts. It's the same old Marxist antipathy for individual freedom. It's an ideology that simply doesn't tolerate the 'live and let live' ethos at the core of my moral foundation, and that's why I find it unacceptable.

A very fair reply. I respect your ideology of individual freedom entirely. Since it is a core of your worldview and logically prior to most other beliefs we've discussed, I would like to address it formally. My other reply above is doing just that.

But I can't make sense of calling me Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, free competition, the whole 9 yards.

So you're labeling me but I don't perceive the due cause since the way you use it sounds as a "Marxist" one is immediately removed from relevant discussion. That's just a deceitful tactic to dismiss genuine critiques. I may disagree with your idea of individual freedom but it's not due to Marx or some deity. No, I disagree with it because I have reasons for it, I am not approaching this from some high moral ground looking down at you. I am entirely willing to concede your concept of freedom but I hope you are willing to defend as well as explain your concept of freedom, leaving unnecessary labels aside. Let's just discuss ideas and be willing to hear all manner of critique (I'd be massively excited if I am taught lessons on freedom etc.).

Most of your ideas are directly or indirectly attributable to Marx. They are definitely leftist and anti-capitalists. Hence, you fit the common understanding of the term "Marxist."

How do you know those ideas are attributable to Marx? What is your understanding of Marx? It sounds like an understanding where anything you disagree with becomes Marxist. Now if I said a commodity is to be exchanged for either money or another commodity, you wouldn't call me Marxist would you? Did you know he talks at length about commodities? If you wouldn't label that thought Marxist, why not? Because you agree with it? I'm beginning to doubt the validity of your understanding of Marx. It sounds like your entire accusation rests on hearsay of what others have told you about Marx when you've not read primary sources and developed a valid view. Instead you are just letting me know that in your fast and loose terminology, a critique of capitalism is synonymous with the left and Marx. Boy, that makes it easy to respond: you don't have to defend capitalism from valid critiques, instead, you just wave the term Marxism and discussion falls silent for you. What a trump card that involves no reasoning whatsoever!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

neo liberal capitalism (what Establishment-types of both parties are supporting because they're bought-off by the banksters) is the absolute worst:

Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer

Like Friedman, Piketty is a man for the times. For 1970s anxieties about inflation substitute today's concerns about the emergence of the plutocratic rich and their impact on economy and society. Piketty is in no doubt, as he indicates in an interview in today's Observer New Review, that the current level of rising wealth inequality, set to grow still further, now imperils the very future of capitalism. He has proved it.

He has proved it.

No he hasn't.

 

[georgephillip]

85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.

Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality​

CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.

So YES capitalism is premised on the need for SOME wealth inequity.

But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.

Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.

Krugman seems to interpret Piketty in a way that implies meritocracy is giving way to family dynasties in the US:

"In America in particular the share of national income going to the top one percent has followed a great U-shaped arc.

"Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States.

"By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half.

"But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge again—and in the United States it’s back to what it was a century ago.

"Still, today’s economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isn’t it?

"Back then, great wealth tended to be inherited; aren’t today’s economic elite people who earned their position?

"Well, Piketty tells us that this isn’t as true as you think, and that in any case this state of affairs may prove no more durable than the middle-class society that flourished for a generation after World War II.

"The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."

Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books

 

[Erand7899]

85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.

Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality​

CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.

So YES capitalism is premised on the need for SOME wealth inequity.

But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

Discontent over wealth inequality is a false premise generated by demogogues for the purpose of gaining political power by firing up the greed and envy of people who do not have wealth. And, that is the only danger to freedom.

The concept that wealth is a finite quantity that needs to be divided up fairly, is only viable to people who have no idea of how wealth is created, or how it is divided up.

Anyone can generate wealth for themselves, at any time that their skills, knowledge, and endeavor can be used to add value to a product that is marketable. Adding value to a marketable product is the only way that wealth can be generated. The rest is just moving that wealth around.

And, since anyone can generate their own wealth, the amount of wealth that others have is immaterial. The biggest drawback to people creating their own wealth is government over regulation, followed by over taxation of the profits.

If you wish to mitigate wealth inequality, start with government.

 

[Dot Com]

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.

Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.

Krugman seems to interpret Piketty in a way that implies meritocracy is giving way to family dynasties in the US:

"In America in particular the share of national income going to the top one percent has followed a great U-shaped arc.

"Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States.

"By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half.

"But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge again—and in the United States it’s back to what it was a century ago.

"Still, today’s economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isn’t it?

"Back then, great wealth tended to be inherited; aren’t today’s economic elite people who earned their position?

"Well, Piketty tells us that this isn’t as true as you think, and that in any case this state of affairs may prove no more durable than the middle-class society that flourished for a generation after World War II.

"The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."

Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books

yep. ANOTHER Gilded Age yet Repub-voters think (I use that term loosely) that everything is A OK. NEWSFLASH!!! The gov't has been captured by the monied-interests & the gov't consequently works for them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.

Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.

Krugman seems to interpret Piketty in a way that implies meritocracy is giving way to family dynasties in the US:

"In America in particular the share of national income going to the top one percent has followed a great U-shaped arc.

"Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States.

"By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half.

"But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge again—and in the United States it’s back to what it was a century ago.

"Still, today’s economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isn’t it?

"Back then, great wealth tended to be inherited; aren’t today’s economic elite people who earned their position?

"Well, Piketty tells us that this isn’t as true as you think, and that in any case this state of affairs may prove no more durable than the middle-class society that flourished for a generation after World War II.

"The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."

Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books

we’re also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."

Exactly! Because the 3 richest Americans, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison all inherited their wealth. No wait.

Numbers 4 & 5, Charles and David Koch inherited their billions. No, wait, when ther dad died in 1967, Koch Industries was worth millions, not tens of billions. They must have done some work.

Numbers 6-9, members of the Walton family, must have benefitted from a family dynasty. No, wait, Sam Walton didn't open the first WalMart until 1962. WalMart stock didn't get listed until 1970. No dynasty there.

Number 10 is Bloomberg.
Number 11 is Sheldon Adelson.
Number 12 is Jeff Bezos.
Number 13 & 14 are Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

Haven't seen any evidence of dynasties yet.
Perhaps you have someone in mind?

 

[gnarlylove]

85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.

Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality​

CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.

So YES capitalism is premised on the need for SOME wealth inequity.

But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

Discontent over wealth inequality is a false premise generated by demogogues for the purpose of gaining political power by firing up the greed and envy of people who do not have wealth. And, that is the only danger to freedom.

The concept that wealth is a finite quantity that needs to be divided up fairly, is only viable to people who have no idea of how wealth is created, or how it is divided up.

Anyone can generate wealth for themselves, at any time that their skills, knowledge, and endeavor can be used to add value to a product that is marketable. Adding value to a marketable product is the only way that wealth can be generated. The rest is just moving that wealth around.

And, since anyone can generate their own wealth, the amount of wealth that others have is immaterial. The biggest drawback to people creating their own wealth is government over regulation, followed by over taxation of the profits.

If you wish to mitigate wealth inequality, start with government.

The premise that wealth can be generated by anyone is false. It depends upon conditions under which a human exists. Namely, access to land, access to credit, access to political influence. A large number of humans do not have access to land, credit or political influence (i.e. speech=money).

If a person lacks access to those things, they cannot generate wealth except through becoming used as a tool or instrument in generating wealth for another. And if a large number of people do not have access, they must be subordinate instruments in wealth generation for someone else.

How can a person generate wealth when they are generating wealth for another?

Being paid for labor is not itself wealth creation. It is remuneration. The human serves her function using her time and brains. Remuneration is a an input of wealth creation; it is the portion of wealth that is owed, a cost among other inputs (land, tools etc.) of generating wealth. Indeed, the lower the remuneration or wage, the more the wealth. So built into capitalism, the profit motive, is this urge to subordinate others, which is far from freedom.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

Discontent over wealth inequality is a false premise generated by demogogues for the purpose of gaining political power by firing up the greed and envy of people who do not have wealth. And, that is the only danger to freedom.

The concept that wealth is a finite quantity that needs to be divided up fairly, is only viable to people who have no idea of how wealth is created, or how it is divided up.

Anyone can generate wealth for themselves, at any time that their skills, knowledge, and endeavor can be used to add value to a product that is marketable. Adding value to a marketable product is the only way that wealth can be generated. The rest is just moving that wealth around.

And, since anyone can generate their own wealth, the amount of wealth that others have is immaterial. The biggest drawback to people creating their own wealth is government over regulation, followed by over taxation of the profits.

If you wish to mitigate wealth inequality, start with government.

The premise that wealth can be generated by anyone is false. It depends upon conditions under which a human exists. Namely, access to land, access to credit, access to political influence. A large number of humans do not have access to land, credit or political influence (i.e. speech=money).

If a person lacks access to those things, they cannot generate wealth except through becoming used as a tool or instrument in generating wealth for another. And if a large number of people do not have access, they must be subordinate instruments in wealth generation for someone else.

How can a person generate wealth when they are generating wealth for another?

Being paid for labor is not itself wealth creation. It is remuneration. The human serves her function using her time and brains. Remuneration is a an input of wealth creation; it is the portion of wealth that is owed, a cost among other inputs (land, tools etc.) of generating wealth.

How can a person generate wealth when they are generating wealth for another?

Personally, I've tried to put at least 10% a year into a 401K or Roth IRA.

It's amazing how much wealth that has generated for me.

 

[georgephillip]

85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.

Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality​

CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.

So YES capitalism is premised on the need for SOME wealth inequity.

But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.

I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.

"The main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.

"But economic trends are not acts of God.

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press

Discontent over wealth inequality is a false premise generated by demogogues for the purpose of gaining political power by firing up the greed and envy of people who do not have wealth. And, that is the only danger to freedom.

The concept that wealth is a finite quantity that needs to be divided up fairly, is only viable to people who have no idea of how wealth is created, or how it is divided up.

Anyone can generate wealth for themselves, at any time that their skills, knowledge, and endeavor can be used to add value to a product that is marketable. Adding value to a marketable product is the only way that wealth can be generated. The rest is just moving that wealth around.

And, since anyone can generate their own wealth, the amount of wealth that others have is immaterial. The biggest drawback to people creating their own wealth is government over regulation, followed by over taxation of the profits.

If you wish to mitigate wealth inequality, start with government.

Government serves its wealthiest citizens first, hence its unlikely to propose a property tax on intangible property like stocks and bonds, or even a Tobin Tax on financial transactions

Maybe government could extend FICA taxes beyond its current limit if the richest 1% of taxpayers didn't already buy and sell politicians like toilet paper?

"If your definition of "wealth" corresponds to marketable assets such as real estate, stocks, and bonds minus all debt, how do the vast majority of citizens "generate their own wealth" when middle class income has stagnated over the past 40 years?

On the eve of WWI Europe had accumulated capital worth six of seven times national income.

"One Great Depression and a pair of World Wars sliced that ratio in half; however, since 1970 we've seen slow growth rates lead to a rising capital ratio slowly approaching that of a century ago.

Government can mitigate wealth inequality through progressive taxation.

Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books