Half the world's wealth now officially in the hands of 1%

[Jack V Savage]

If you have such a skepticism of people to do the right thing, why don't you extend that lack of confidence to the people holding power over others?

The answer to that is so simple and obvious (institutional checks) that I can only attribute your failure to come up with it yourself to indoctrination.

 

[Uchi Mata]

If you have such a skepticism of people to do the right thing, why don't you extend that lack of confidence to the people holding power over others?

I don't have much skepticism of people doing the right thing. I tend to be an optimist about people. What I don't think people are very good at doing (and what we need government to do) is coordinate long term, collective action to solve problems markets won't solve. The social safety net certainly falls under that rubric. Government is also necessary to solve the free rider problem for many forms of collective action, and I can't really fathom a non-governmental solution to that that is realistic.

 

[Greoric]

The answer to that is so simple and obvious (institutional checks) that I can only attribute your failure to come up with it yourself to indoctrination.

The institutional checks we have now prevent politicians from pushing handouts to people so they can get votes? No need to answer that though. I'm sure you have some snide remark followed by a straw man ready.

And your government assistance stance is not only obnoxiously ignorant, you're again being incredibly intellectually dishonest by suggesting someone's claim on their saved capital is a form of govt assistance. Just because the government exists doesn't necessitate those those claims wouldn't be honored in government's absence.

 

[Greoric]

I don't have much skepticism of people doing the right thing. I tend to be an optimist about people. What I don't think people are very good at doing (and what we need government to do) is coordinate long term, collective action to solve problems markets won't solve. The social safety net certainly falls under that rubric. Government is also necessary to solve the free rider problem for many forms of collective action, and I can't really fathom a non-governmental solution to that that is realistic.

So you attribute self interest to everyone but to the people looking for more power? That's quite the dangerous view to have Uchi.

And again, your idea that government is the only charitable actor is founded only in propaganda.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

And I really don't care. Instead of crying for wealth redistribution and lusting after someone else's gold, I'll make my way up through my own means.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

This isn't good news for society regardless of whether you're left or right leaning.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/credit-suisse-world-wealth-report-1.3270056

This is what happens in Crony Capitalism. When you marry Government and Big Business the Big Business can use Government for market controls.

Didn't you ever wonder why the 1% has never been richer but yet at the same time we've never been more regulated by Government today? Yeah... that's Crony Capitalism.

This is NOT Capitalism. Capitalism is about a free market, not about Big Business using a giant Government Billy Club to gain an edge on the market.

 

[BVG]

This is what happens in Crony Capitalism. When you marry Government and Big Business the Big Business can use Government for market controls.

Didn't you ever wonder why the 1% has never been richer but yet at the same time we've never been more regulated by Government today? Yeah... that's Crony Capitalism.

This is NOT Capitalism. Capitalism is about a free market, not about Big Business using a giant Government Billy Club to gain an edge on the market.

Don't ya think that this is what capitalism eventually devolves into though, naturally?

 

[Jack V Savage]

The institutional checks we have now prevent politicians from pushing handouts to people so they can get votes?

Institutional checks make it possible for flawed people to wield power without the system falling apart. That's what liberalism (that is constitutionally limited gov't guided by reason) is about. You can object to any currently existing ones, but you can't reasonably argue that no institutional checks are better.

No need to answer that though. I'm sure you have some snide remark followed by a straw man ready.

You're turning into a complete troll, my man.

And your government assistance stance is not only obnoxiously ignorant, you're again being incredibly intellectually dishonest by suggesting someone's claim on their saved capital is a form of govt assistance. Just because the government exists doesn't necessitate those those claims wouldn't be honored in government's absence.

Interesting that you choose to respond with petty sniping in an unrelated post to a strawman argument instead of to my post and the actual point that I actually made. Fair to say that it's because you realize that my point was airtight?

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Capitalism is the real life version of Monopoly. Eventually someone is gonna win it all.

Wrong. This is not Capitalism. This is the results of Government in bed with business.

 

[Greoric]

Institutional checks make it possible for flawed people to wield power without the system falling apart. That's what liberalism (that is constitutionally limited gov't guided by reason) is about. You can object to any currently existing ones, but you can't reasonably argue that no institutional checks are better.

You're turning into a complete troll, my man.

Interesting that you choose to respond with petty sniping in an unrelated post to a strawman argument instead of to my post and the actual point that I actually made. Fair to say that it's because you realize that my point was airtight?

No brother. The more we have these discussions the more I see you just using verbal jiu jitsu and straw mans to maneuver around indefensible points.

This omnipresent government assistance nonsense being a quintessential example:

"Any retiree is living off gov't assistance. It doesn't really matter if it's direct transfer payments like SS or indirect ones like capital ownership or rent."

Here you're presuming that claims on that capital ownership won't be honored but for government involvement. That's obnoxiously ignorant, and since you're generally not an ignorant person that leaves only dishonesty in the wake.

Also in so far as the institutional checks issue goes, it's not necessary to have government to also have institutional checks just like it's not a pre-requisite to have government to have law.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Bullshit. If you're talking about world wealth, talk about world wealth. The fact that you're including people who make less than a dollar a day in that average means you also gotta account for the fact that you can live like a king for a million dollars in many parts of the world.

My brother and his wife each make $30k/year. They were smart with their money and within 5 years owned both of their cars and owned a home worth 160k on which they owed only 110k. If they sold all of their assets they could have moved to the Philippines - where his wife is from (Cebu) - with 60k in cash. On that money they could have lived very well for some time with her family.

We're all in the 1% of the world.

Not that this justifies our current situation. Our current economy is fucked anyway. Within 10 years there's going to be an epic meltdown of our economy.

 

[Greoric]

My brother and his wife each make $30k/year. They were smart with their money and within 5 years owned both of their cars and owned a home worth 160k on which they owed only 110k. If they sold all of their assets they could have moved to the Philippines - where his wife is from (Cebu) - with 60k in cash. On that money they could have lived very well for some time with her family.

We're all in the 1% of the world.

Not that this justifies our current situation. Our current economy is fucked anyway. Within 10 years there's going to be an epic meltdown of our economy.

Sooner than that mate. It's already unraveling before us now. These contractions always start from the fringes and work their way to the core.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

So the question for me is why would the other 99% participate in a system that so disproportionately benefits so few?

Because it's a system that the majority of the 99% have built. Not intentionally, but it is too common for people to appeal to Government to fix any and every problem they see. "We need laws!" "We need regulations!" But who is in a better position to manipulate laws and regulations? The 1%. Then laws and regulations get created with their participation and it often can be used to crush opposition. The Crony's get fatter and with less competition to drive down prices and drive up wages shit gets worse.

There's more than that as well, but you asked why we participate in this system? We created this system. If Government was at the very least very limited in their influence on the market then they could not interfere with competition and people would have more choices.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Arguably the dumbest post I've seen on here in 2015. People like this are what is wrong with our system. No matter what they must take their parties side on any issue. Think for yourself sometimes please and stop making the world a dumber place

Um, BOTH parties are wings on the same bird. If anything you're being a party hack by choosing a side rather than stepping outside to see the false dichotomy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No brother. The more we have these discussions the more I see you just using verbal jiu jitsu and straw mans to maneuver around indefensible points.

Not really. What actually happens is that you have your points refuted and think it must be some kind of trick.

This omnipresent government assistance nonsense being a quintessential example:

Here you're presuming that claims on that capital ownership won't be honored but for government involvement.

In fact, claims on capital ownership do rely on gov't involvement. That is indisputably true. I haven't proposed a counter-factual (it is very naive to assume that capital institutions would be similar without gov't involvement and ignorant to fail to realize that property is very different in the absence of a gov't).

That's obnoxiously ignorant, and since you're generally not an ignorant person that leaves only dishonesty in the wake.

So you are basing a public accusation of dishonesty on the fact that I have a better grasp of this issue than you do. That is quite low.

Also in so far as the institutional checks issue goes, it's not necessary to have government to also have institutional checks just like it's not a pre-requisite to have government to have law.

Well, if you choose to call your alternative state "not gov't," whatever. For a normal person speaking English, that's all part of the deal.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Oh God, you've got me agreeing with Jack.

Oh fuck, you got me saying Oh God...

Right so this is less precise, because note how I added "on net" and "at the expense of"...

In any event Ok. So you assume that anytime someone is producing something of value they're only doing it at a subsistence rate?

If you're not producing any "stuff" and are merely consuming "stuff" you either are consuming stuff that you saved up from a time that you were productive or you are consuming stuff that other people are producing. What you consume doesn't appear from thin air.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

First of all, I am absolutely shocked that you accept the reality of the first sentence you're referring to. Frankly, that's a huge idea that even people who believe in limited government around here don't appreciate.

With that out of the way, I want to push back a bit on your idea that government has to be the champion of the poor or else no one will. I don't know what you're looking at that confirms government is the only eleemosynary actor we have, but I challenge you to cross reference those sources. Just as a point of contact, before we had this quagmire of a healthcare system, namely the employer mandated insurance system stretching back into the 20th century, the poor were taken care of through church funded hospitals. They weren't just dying left and right on the streets with no hand to help.

Now, you won't really have an argument out of me that the total contribution to the poor nationwide would be less than the amount government shovels out now, but you actually want that. It's advisable for charitable activity to be selective to the people that actually need the assistance, instead of blanketing money to people that either don't need it, or worse the people that developed a dependency to it.

Its also important to remember that because of our productivity increase we are even more capable of private charitable activity than in the past. (Though that's declined slightly over the last couple decades with our atrocious monetary policy decisions that wipe out the purchasing power of the middle class.)

Just on your own anecdotal basis, who do you know that truly despises the poor? Who do you know of that hasn't at least given a few bucks to salvation army or to a guy sitting on a street corner? Even if we were to be completely partisan hacks and say that the republicans just want to crush the poor into the ground, half of our country votes democrat and at least sympathizes with the less well off.

Good post.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

The answer to that is so simple and obvious (institutional checks)

Because that has worked so well! We're only teetering on the edge of bankruptcy as a nation!

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Don't ya think that this is what capitalism eventually devolves into though, naturally?

It's not Capitalism. Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to this. You have to empower Government to insert itself into the market more and more and more. This isn't something that HAS to happen, but I can probably accept that a society by HUMAN NATURE will naturally inevitably destroy Capitalism and replace it with Crony Capitalism.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

No brother. The more we have these discussions the more I see you just using verbal jiu jitsu and straw mans to maneuver around indefensible points.

Yes, that is what Jack does.