Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.

"Conflict" would include an argument about who takes out the garbage. You only use it because it's vague. "Coercion" is a more precise term. Everyone agrees that "coercion" should be banned from human relations, but I doubt anyone would claim we should make arguments illegal.

There is no "coercion" involved in market exchanges. Only government can legally use coercion.



That's a fundamental principle of economics. What your saying is that buying and selling is evil somehow.



As I said, the word "conflict" is vague. That's why you use it. There is no coercion in the market. Any discussion of "conflict" is just meaningless blather.

[For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.

More meaningless blather. People dying of thirst in the dessert aren't relevant to economics.

I never knew people would be so sensitive to the word conflict but I will play along. I will use any word you want be to use to describe how suppliers and demanders have opposing roles in the market economy.

They aren't "opposing" roles.

 

[Bombur]

How does the slope of a line equate "conflict?"

In reality both will struggle for power in the negotiation as their desires are the opposite.

Sometimes one group loses power and another gains it.

 

[Bombur]

I never knew people would be so sensitive to the word conflict but I will play along. I will use any word you want be to use to describe how suppliers and demanders have opposing roles in the market economy.

They aren't "opposing" roles.

Yes they are. Failure of one to fulfill their role results in inefficiency. Downward and upward pressures on prices are key to a healthy market. Those opposing pressures is the conflict. Each side has a role to provide the appropriate pressure.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes they are. Failure of one to fulfill their role results in inefficiency. Downward and upward pressures on prices are key to a healthy market. Those opposing pressures is the conflict. Each side has a role to provide the appropriate pressure.

Define "inefficiency".

 

[Bombur]

Yes they are. Failure of one to fulfill their role results in inefficiency. Downward and upward pressures on prices are key to a healthy market. Those opposing pressures is the conflict. Each side has a role to provide the appropriate pressure.

Define "inefficiency".

In this context I am describing the result of an imperfect market.

 

[Iceweasel]

In this context I am describing the result of an imperfect market.

Unfortunately, only you knows what that means.

 

[Bombur]

In this context I am describing the result of an imperfect market.

Unfortunately, only you knows what that means.

Any market that is not perfect.

Perfect market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceweasel]

In this context I am describing the result of an imperfect market.

Unfortunately, only you knows what that means.

Any market that is not perfect.

Perfect market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You realize that's all theoretical and might make for a good discussion but there is no perfect market and no non-governmental intervention in this world.

 

[georgephillip]

The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.

The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.

Have you told Oprah and Beyonce and J Zee and Beiber that you hate them for being rich and successful? Have you demanded that they give up half of what they have for the "common good" ?

Why would I waste my breath on rich bitches?

 

[georgephillip]

Yes there is. You are ignorant. WHAT will Obama be talking about in the SOTU? "INCOME INEQUALITY"

Moron.

Absolutely correct, imho, regarding Wall Street's Boy's next SOTU, and won't we all be morons if we don't remember how the richest 1% of US citizens have captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009 while the bottom 90% got poorer?

Class War Victors Get Higher on the Hog » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Exactly! So lets remember! Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat president. Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat Senate majority leader. Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat speaker of the house.

Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which expanded unemployment. Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which expanded poverty. Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which aims to do all of this so as to ensure their power through an electorate dependent on government for their every need.

And then....lets remember not to vote for Dumbocrats and their failed "trickle up poverty" economic policies ever again!

Why do you find it necessary to forget how both Bushes and Clintons and Reagan and Carter all depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements?

Are you proud to be richly partisan?

 

[Bombur]

Unfortunately, only you knows what that means.

Any market that is not perfect.

Perfect market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You realize that's all theoretical and might make for a good discussion but there is no perfect market and no non-governmental intervention in this world.

The bolded part is exactly my point.

All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.

Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.

 

[georgephillip]

They're not that unequal.

How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?

The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.

Who said anything about natural rights?
I'm talking about productivity.

Exploitation?
Commies are funny.
You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.
You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.
Whiner.

Rhymes with rich:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
China’s Youth Meet Microsoft
KYE Factory in China Produces for Microsoft and
other U.S. Companies
“We are like prisoners… We do not have a life. Only work.”
-Teenaged Microsoft Worker"
Maybe you can get a job when you grow a pair?

http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports/Chinas_Youth_Meet_Micro.pdf

 

[MikeK]

Do not forget jealousy it is getting so that people who earn six figures or more have to deal with the Jealous fools who think you do not deserve to have more than me. And call you rich...

You are focused on the way things are "getting." Are you old enough to remember the way things were? Specifically the political atmosphere in America when no one paid any attention to the "rich." It wasn't that long ago. And the reason for the difference back then was the American Dream was being fulfilled. There was a strong and healthy middle class of workers who were paid progressive living wages and whose jobs were not subject to export by greedy globalist corporations. But something happened.

It began with Reaganomics, which was a surreptitiously imposed version of Milton Friedman-style laissez faire siphon-up economics rather than the "trickle-down" promised by the Man From General Electric. That was followed by a quietly administered removal ("de-regulation") of laws which effectively prevented the banks, Wall Street, and the corporatocracy from doing the things they've done to create the situation we are dealing with today -- which is destruction of the middle class and the rise of a new Gilded Age.

It isn't jealousy you're seeing. It's resentment. And it's well justified.

How much does someone have to have to be called RICH anyway???

That's up to you and me to decide.

The strength of a nation depends mainly on the health and stability of its economy. The U.S. Economy is no longer healthy, nor is it stable, and the fault lies with those who have tampered with it and brought about a deficit in the multi-trillion dollar range. Their actions have weakened America, plain and simple. And their common motivation for doing it is greed.

I believe the way to eliminate the toxic motivating force of greed is to simply establish a maximum allowable level of personal assets that any citizen may possess. I believe twenty million dollars is a reasonable limit and I think that limit should be enforced by IRS confiscation of every penny in excess of that amount.

Radical, yes. But necessary to restore the health and strength of American society. And I'm open to discussing this with anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.

 

[MikeK]

The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.

Who said anything about natural rights? I'm talking about productivity.

But you seem to have a one-dimensional perception of the mechanics of productivity.

Exploitation?

Yes! Microsoft is a perfect example of economic exploitation.

Commies are funny.

Whom do you believe is a "commie," and why? Do you understand what communism is?

You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.

Gates exploits everyone who uses Windows, including you and me. He has done that by constructing what in fact is a monopolistic trap which is predicated on a system of planned obsolescence and dependency on Microsoft to remain current. He shakes you and me down every two years or so to the tune of hundreds of dollars when we need nothing more than a few dollars worth of updating. And if you're thinking that shakedown represents productivity, the fact is without Gates' monopoly we both would have more money to spend on other things -- which means productivity would not suffer from eliminating Gates.

You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.

It's not that simple. As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap. He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls. Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

It's not that simple. As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap. He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls. Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.

I seriously can't figure out if this is sarcasm or not, so props to you for that.

Your argument though, if legit, is absurd.

'Bill Gates created a monopoly, except for all these alternatives that do the same thing, that I don't have time to learn.'

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Try telling that to those creative entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.

Steve's not taking any calls, but he would probably be among the first to credit public funding of the internet to explain much of his $ucce$$.

Jobs didn't make most of his money from the internet. I doubt he would credit public funding.

Based on this conversation finding its way to Steve Jobs, I was curious about Apple so I did a little investigating - does anyone recognize the name Mike Markkula? Here's what Steve Wozniak himself says about Markkula and his contribution to Apple Computers Inc;

Steve and I get a lot of credit, but Mike Markkula was probably more responsible for our early success, and you never hear about him.

So who exactly was Mike Markkula? Per wiki,

In 1977, Markkula brought his business expertise along with US$250,000 ($80,000 as an equity investment in the company and $170,000 as a loan) and became a one-third owner of Apple and employee number 3.

Markkula was an investor, to the tune of $250,000.

Just thought I'd share. Now all you socialists... er, liberals keep believing poor people are the economic drivers in our system. Nothing to see here...

 

[Contumacious]

The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone. That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all. People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.

The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance. Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now. In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.

When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer. Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.

If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat. These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now. Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?

The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed. Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation. The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal. Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US. If production can be outsourced, it has been.

It is now impossible to fine textiles, clothing or bedding and towels which are manufactured in North America, and the quality of the clothing is much lower than it was when manufacturing was doing here. This means that the clothing has to be replaced more frequently, which is fine by the retailers. Conservatives say "If you can't find a job, go back to school and upgrade your skills", but for manufacturing workers in their 50's, this isn't a viable solution. For those with families and mortgages, how are they to support their families while they upgrade their skills?

What has happened, is that those who used to work iin manufacturing, are now going into the service sector, which never lacked for workers in the first place. Recently there was a news story which said that 5,000 people lined up to apply for jobs at a new mall which was opening. These are minimum wage jobs, with little hope of advancement.

There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs". Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family. Those are the jobs that have been lost. And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.

The Obama economy sucks, it's as bad as the FDR Depression and for the same reasons: Soviet Style Democrat Central Planned economy is a 100% Guaranteed Fail

Your economic ideas suck, just deal with it

That is 1000% correct.

.

 

[georgephillip]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Do you have any proof for yours? It seems not. Two things happening at the same time does not a correlation make.

"cor·re·la·tion noun \ˌkȯr-ə-ˈlā-shən, ˌkär-\
: the relationship between things that happen or change together

"Full Definition of CORRELATION

1: the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone <the obviously high positive correlation between scholastic aptitude and college entrance."
OR
"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone. That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all. People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.

The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance. Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now. In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.

When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer. Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.

If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat. These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now. Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?

The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed. Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation. The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal. Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US. If production can be outsourced, it has been.

It is now impossible to fine textiles, clothing or bedding and towels which are manufactured in North America, and the quality of the clothing is much lower than it was when manufacturing was doing here. This means that the clothing has to be replaced more frequently, which is fine by the retailers. Conservatives say "If you can't find a job, go back to school and upgrade your skills", but for manufacturing workers in their 50's, this isn't a viable solution. For those with families and mortgages, how are they to support their families while they upgrade their skills?

What has happened, is that those who used to work iin manufacturing, are now going into the service sector, which never lacked for workers in the first place. Recently there was a news story which said that 5,000 people lined up to apply for jobs at a new mall which was opening. These are minimum wage jobs, with little hope of advancement.

There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs". Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family. Those are the jobs that have been lost. And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.

Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now.

30 years ago the minimum wage was $3.35.
How much groceries did that buy?


When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer.

When we import millions of low-skill illegals, is it any wonder that the competition drives down wages for our own low skilled workers?
Boot 20 million illegals and watch wages rise and public assistance drop.

Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US.

Baloney. We produce more than ever.

There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs". Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family.

After manufacturing was destroyed in Europe and Asia in WWII, that was the case.
The rest of the world rebuilt and we destroyed our manufacturing with union idiocy, over regulation and high taxation.

 

[dblack]

Do we want economic freedom or not?