Is a system for the redistribution of wealth necessary for a society?
No it isn't ...
No it isn't ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Poll
Is a system for the redistribution of wealth necessary for a society?
| Yes | 54% | 54% - 32 | ||||
| No | 45% | 45% - 27 | ||||
| Total: 59 | ||||||
I realize that Russia went from a feudal state with serfs and became industrialized within 50 years and that was a a real accomplishment. The authoritarian structure of the the Soviet Union enabled that to happen very quickly. Anyway, you say "ussr collapsed presicely because its leaders lost their grasp of what kinda country they run and how can it function in the world where its economy, if opened, wouldn't withstand competition on the global market." I agree, that a planned economy wasn't obligatory and perhaps it was even beneficial in the built out of the Soviet Union, but society changed, for better or for worse, and the benefits of the planned economy were not as effecient as a market economy and as you state that the failure of leadership to keep control caused the collapse. Sure, it was the authoritarian structure that prevented society from moving towards a more efficient market economy. When the leaders loosened their control, at that point it was all over. And China is different and it did take a different path by controlling how they opened thier economy to prevent the same thing from happening to them, but then again China also has a very long history with authoritarian and bureacratic control over their population.Shahter wrote:
as i said, you've no idea what you are talking about. you've been told "we pwned 'em in teh cold war 'cause we be the kewl ones" and stick to that bullshit because it makes you feel as if you had a larger dick. in reality, soviets took russia and the rest of the union in completely ruined, almost medeval state, and in less than fifty years they shaped that crap into superpower that won ww2, conquered half a europe, sent the first man into space and had all the "progressive" west shitting their pants in fear of soviets' military might - all that while running "ineffcient and inflexible" economy.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Sorry but those countries did fail because they had planned economies. Planned economies are ineffcient and inflexible and when they couldn't keep up with the pace of change, black markets sprung up and eventually market systems took over. China learned from these mistakes and began to open up markets shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Anyway, dude you explain to me why these countries shrugged off their planned economies, like I said its organic. These planned economies failed to provide a benefit to those societies so those socties shrugged off those structures. Even with all the authoritarian might that the Soviet Union had, it couldn't keep that structure in place.
<wall of text removed>
why did ussr collapse? certainly not because of any economic pressure (you do not apply that kind of pressure on a closed economy at all), not because of "black market", "uprisings" of any kind or any such bullshit - this is just ridiculous, not because planned economy "failed to provide a benefit" - it may come as a surprise for you, but not everybody on this planet measures their well-being in happy-meals-per-day, and soviets had their propaganda working against that line of thought very well. ussr collapsed presicely because its leaders lost their grasp of what kinda country they run and how can it function in the world where its economy, if opened, wouldn't withstand competition on the global market. russian economy wasn't planned and closed because it's some kinda obligatory thing that comes with commies - but because it's the only way to have any kind of economy in this country with its climate and geografical position at all. that, of course, comes with a price, which is considerably lower standards of living compared to to west, but, as i said, that haven't been a problem for more than half a century and certainly wouldn't have been problem moving forward, if only the leaders of ussr haven't dropped the ball - they looked at the west and thought they could run something like that here, when in fact that's simply impossible. now russian economy is just an oil/gas pump - that is the result of your fucking open market.
you also mentioned china - well, there'a a world of difference between russian and chineeze economical and geografical features. do i really need to tell you what they are, or you are smart enough to put two and two together?
so, please, if you don't know shit about something, i recommend you keep your nonsence to yourself.
Now to the degree that a planned economy works better for Russia, that's debatable. I do know that a planned economy provides the governmental structure with a lot of power but that concentration of power comes at a cost to the overall economy. I have no doubt that Russia has experienced some of the worst negative effects that a market economy can have. But, market economies are more efficient in the allocation of resources precisely because a bureaucracy is not involved. With a market economy its a matter of regulating it to mute the negative effects. But as Galt has posted early, making profit is a huge motivator and it is the profit motive that creates the efficiencies, another name for that is greed and not all greed and wanting is bad. Once the leaders loosened control or lost control, the planned economy was doomed to fail because it simply could not compete with the efficiency of the market.
Galt, I'm overrunning the posts here a bit, but I found this very interesting, its was Steve Forbes on CNBC today, now most of the time I find him to be obstinate almost to the point of being vitriolic but I guess with more time that a small sound bite he starts to make some sense. Anyway he is no bleeding heart marxist/socialist liberal, but what he says is pretty much in line with how things actually operate in our present society.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm aware of Orwell's politics, his view of the world is still intriguing and I think he saw to the core very clearly.
Anyway, I disagree on why social programs came about. You view them as a pacification tool that is/was needed. I view them as an unnecessary waste of resources instigated by people who took Marx to heart before he was completely debunked and turned their guilt about being wealthy into a need to 'do good deeds'. FDR wasn't exactly a poor man that could empathize or really have any understanding of what it meant to be poor and yet he thought he knew what was best for poor people anyway because he read The Jungle (just like every two-bit college socialist who becomes so adamant about social injustice after reading a few books), he just happened to have the power to enact programs that he felt would fix the issues. I view the man so many revere as a busybody who did far more harm than good to the stability of our nation in the long term. He opened the door for generation after generation of 'liberals' to enact their ideas on social welfare and how to 'fix' the poor. They're all idiots. Every last one of them. What's worse, is now they've created an entire society that expects handouts and bailouts instead of being responsible for their own actions. If anything ends our nation it will be that attitude.
If we agree that the bare minimum is only necessary why do they keep pushing the boundaries further and further into the Marxist camp? They're destroying the carrot (the desire to be wealthy provided by capitalism) they need to pull the cart of their socialist programs. Eventually that mule is going to stop pulling because he's got no incentive, then we're all screwed.
Here check out the video starting around minute 1:00 http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1 … amp;play=1
He is probably the strongest advocate for free markets and he basically states free markets work and then you also need stuff like food stamps and health care for those people who are still in need. Now the why its necessary is debatable, I think its for long term stability, but I'm sure most people would rather believe its for philanthropic reasons to make themselves feel better, like champagne socialists.
Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Regulation of what? The only regulation I feel is necessary is prosecution against fraud, theft and collusion. Some would argue against even these basic regulations but it's too easy for a company to hide behind legalese to deceive the customer that these basic functions are needed.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Agree to disagree... the only way either of us would be proved right or wrong is if the path you propose were taken and the Keynesian/FDR programs were thrown away. I would say that we would see a rise in radicalism bred by increased poverty and the destruction of the middle class because that would be the natural course for an unbridled market. You might think it would turn out differently but I have my doubts. I would however like to hear more about how you would propose the market be controlled, if at all, or do you propose the removal of all obstacles to moral hazard and let people live and die by the wilds of the market place. IMO the later has romantic notions attached but its not really realistic least you wind up with the Romanticisms of "Dr Zhivago" because when people have empty bellies its pretty tough to tell them they have a dream and that their predicaments their own dam fault.
My view on controlling the negative effects of the market are to
1. regulate - which we do already
2. redistribute - which we also do already
We do both and if you propose to get rid of one then the other must be increased to prevent negative effects or to smooth out the peaks and troughs. Its the way its being done presently and I don't think that the absence of the problems that were solved by the introduction of these measure amounts to proof that they are no longer necessary. IMO its proof that the measures are working. Like I said, its their removal that will prove or disprove the point and that would be one hell of a social experiment... which I will refer back to the removal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 and the subsequent crash of the market within a decade, markets are self destructive and in no small part because people are greedy and immoral... who knows, perhaps after the crash may be something better will implemented and perhaps the repeal of the welfare state will lead to something better, but I doubt that an unbridled market would be sustainable nor long lasting. IMO the last thing anyone wants to see are the revolting proles.
Redistribution is not necessary in the slightest. Personal wealth is far more likely to end up invested or spent in industries that are lower level than government confiscation is. 2/3 of the money confiscated by the government for redistribution gets lost in the beaurocracy. If I let that millionaire keep his money he may purchase a yacht. Along with that yacht builder he is employing (not singlehandedly mind you) a sail maker, a dockmaster, a launch driver, a restaurant staff for the club he belongs to, club fees, a dockyard staff to care for his boat during winter storage, a captain for his vessel, cabinet makers to create the interior, an engine mechanic to care for his engine, a gas dock staff, etc etc on down the line. All of these people are employed because other people have disposable income to spend on 'toys' such as yachts. That money that went unconfiscated ended up in the hands of many more people than would've happened if it went into taxes alone. Anything the government touches is inherently inefficient and wasteful.
As for the repeat of Glass-Steagall... we're seeing a reaction to the repeal of government interference that wouldn't have occurred if the damn interference hadn't occurred in the first place. Yes, there will always be growing pains in whatever sector the government relinqueshes control over. People push the boundaries until they get bitten and then they retreat. It's human nature. Sure, it hurts when the banks are so big but it's a learning process.
There's nothing wrong with greed as rational self interest. There are always those who have compulsions akin to OCD when it comes to aquisitiveness. We see this with pack rats. They are an aberration, rather than the rule, and you know this.
Yes, there are peaks and valleys within a capitalistic system but 99% of them are caused by poor government legislation. Bad legislation in China will ripple across the Pacific and affect everyone in the world. Same goes for any major economy. Hell, the small ones are just as important. It all depends on how many dominoes are stacked on them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This is the right question.Kmarion wrote:
Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
No it isn't and the question to both is really no ...Spark wrote:
This is the right question.Kmarion wrote:
Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
These questions is to general tbh ... think it was FM that brought it up some pages ago ... first you have to define what kind of society you want ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Well, I guess if everyone was exactly the same with no variation...then yes it can happen.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Okay dude, one more time, I am not talking about the fact that 10% of income is very different between the poor and the rich.
The question is why we must have a tiered system just because 10% for a poor person is a lot more important than 10% for a wealthy person.
Like get rid of money. You work for society.
Of course all jobs would have to be exactly the same because you wouldn't want people arguing about work because one job is harder than the other.
Will there be a Gattaca test in the new hive society?
Tax money isn't 'lost' it pays for equiptment/supplies and for people's wages, who go on to spend that money. When you tax people, you don't loose any money, you just relocate it to be spent by other people.JohnG@lt wrote:
Redistribution is not necessary in the slightest. Personal wealth is far more likely to end up invested or spent in industries that are lower level than government confiscation is. 2/3 of the money confiscated by the government for redistribution gets lost in the beaurocracy. If I let that millionaire keep his money he may purchase a yacht. Along with that yacht builder he is employing (not singlehandedly mind you) a sail maker, a dockmaster, a launch driver, a restaurant staff for the club he belongs to, club fees, a dockyard staff to care for his boat during winter storage, a captain for his vessel, cabinet makers to create the interior, an engine mechanic to care for his engine, a gas dock staff, etc etc on down the line. All of these people are employed because other people have disposable income to spend on 'toys' such as yachts. That money that went unconfiscated ended up in the hands of many more people than would've happened if it went into taxes alone. Anything the government touches is inherently inefficient and wasteful.
The general issues with the notion of removing redistribution of wealth are:
Democracy. The large majority want things like strong social security, and that wins elections.
Also NOBODY wants free trade. A lot of the focus on non-free trade issues is aimed at things that help those at the bottom of the ladder (eg social welfare). The major aspects in which western societies violate free trade actually help the rich, not the poor. Copywrites, trademarks, patents, subsidies, government payed for research (military, university, etc), too big to fail, poitical/electoral systems, huge swathes of govenment policies and laws and on and on and on... all need to be removed of completely redesigned if you want a free market society. In fact, to sensibly get anywhere near a free market system you'd have to do this to the whole world.
This just gives some idea as to just how much most societies have been built up with the aim of keeping the rich and powerful rich and powerful. If you want a society that functions fairly without wealth distribution, you have to eliminate all the policies and laws that are helping out the rich more than the poor too, otherwise it's just an attack on the most vulnerable people in society.
Where on earth do you get your ideas from? First, we don't live in a Democracy, nor should we strive to be one. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Second, without patents, trademarks and copyrights no one would bother inventing anything or writing anything new. Why go through the hassle of inventing a new product when it can be copied verbatim as soon as it hits the shelves? This is the same argument that people make when they want all software to be open source and by intellectual property pirates to justify their arguments and they are complete fail. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are the absolute foundation of capitalism. None of these things are the exclusive privilege or domain of the rich either. In fact, they are one of the few ways open to a poor person to become rich. Come up with a new idea, patent it, and profit.PureFodder wrote:
Tax money isn't 'lost' it pays for equiptment/supplies and for people's wages, who go on to spend that money. When you tax people, you don't loose any money, you just relocate it to be spent by other people.
The general issues with the notion of removing redistribution of wealth are:
Democracy. The large majority want things like strong social security, and that wins elections.
Also NOBODY wants free trade. A lot of the focus on non-free trade issues is aimed at things that help those at the bottom of the ladder (eg social welfare). The major aspects in which western societies violate free trade actually help the rich, not the poor. Copywrites, trademarks, patents, subsidies, government payed for research (military, university, etc), too big to fail, poitical/electoral systems, huge swathes of govenment policies and laws and on and on and on... all need to be removed of completely redesigned if you want a free market society. In fact, to sensibly get anywhere near a free market system you'd have to do this to the whole world.
This just gives some idea as to just how much most societies have been built up with the aim of keeping the rich and powerful rich and powerful. If you want a society that functions fairly without wealth distribution, you have to eliminate all the policies and laws that are helping out the rich more than the poor too, otherwise it's just an attack on the most vulnerable people in society.
You really have no idea what a 'free market society' is. You are describing anarchy instead.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-09 14:53:24)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, I guess it's about as general as your answer.. twice now. The question was deliberately general, open for interpretation.Varegg wrote:
No it isn't and the question to both is really no ...Spark wrote:
This is the right question.Kmarion wrote:
Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
These questions is to general tbh ... think it was FM that brought it up some pages ago ... first you have to define what kind of society you want ...
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Whatever your answer I don't think one sentence is sufficient to answer it.Varegg wrote:
No it isn't and the question to both is really no ...Spark wrote:
This is the right question.Kmarion wrote:
Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
These questions is to general tbh ... think it was FM that brought it up some pages ago ... first you have to define what kind of society you want ...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Basic macroeconomics doesn't answer this?CameronPoe wrote:
Pray tell how do capitalists acquire additional labour if everyone is employed?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You can't make that assumption.CameronPoe wrote:
Another thought: given that capitalism demands unemployment in order to cope with fluctuations in markets/demand/etc.
As an aside I think most people would differentiate between unemployment benefits (that CP outlined) and welfare.
/immigration aside
The question of the thread is asking fundamental questions that have to be asked when putting a social system together. If you don't take it in context of the other questions you have to ask then it doesn't make any sense.
For example "What is more valuable, quality of human life or private property?" While the answer isn't in black and white necessarily the answer to that question basically predicts whether or not redistribution of wealth is necessary or not.
People have such basic but differing views about what is/is not important in a society that a poll doesn't make any sense without a definition of terms.
For example "What is more valuable, quality of human life or private property?" While the answer isn't in black and white necessarily the answer to that question basically predicts whether or not redistribution of wealth is necessary or not.
People have such basic but differing views about what is/is not important in a society that a poll doesn't make any sense without a definition of terms.
Basic macro says obscene, economic-apocalyptic inflation haha.nukchebi0 wrote:
Basic macroeconomics doesn't answer this?CameronPoe wrote:
Pray tell how do capitalists acquire additional labour if everyone is employed?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You can't make that assumption.
As an aside I think most people would differentiate between unemployment benefits (that CP outlined) and welfare.
/immigration aside
Everything is relative to something else. I maintain my property is more valuable to me than the the life of the person trying to take it from me. However, the mother of the person who was killed trying to take my property would undoubtedly have a different opinion. However, an innocent life is more valuable to me than my private property. Then again, what is innocent to me my not be to you. No absolute definition to the terms you seek.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The question of the thread is asking fundamental questions that have to be asked when putting a social system together. If you don't take it in context of the other questions you have to ask then it doesn't make any sense.
For example "What is more valuable, quality of human life or private property?" While the answer isn't in black and white necessarily the answer to that question basically predicts whether or not redistribution of wealth is necessary or not.
People have such basic but differing views about what is/is not important in a society that a poll doesn't make any sense without a definition of terms.
And who should pay for it?Kmarion wrote:
Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
Also, should people be allowed to accumulate unlimited wealth and stick it in Swiss banks where it does no good?
This has fucked up a good part of Africa for example.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-09 17:04:19)
Fuck Israel
Wealth on this planet isn't zero-sum. It's not a limited resource. While them sticking their money in a Swiss bank account doesn't do anyone any good, the value of that wealth is diminished every minute that it sits there. No interest rate in the world keeps up with inflation. On a long enough timeline that 'wealth' becomes valueless.Dilbert_X wrote:
And who should pay for it?Kmarion wrote:
Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
Also, should people be allowed to accumulate unlimited wealth and stick it in Swiss banks where it does no good?
This has fucked up a good part of Africa for example.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Thats not relevant, except as further proof money tied up in foreign banks is far less socially useful than if it were invested locally in something productive.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-09 17:14:15)
Fuck Israel
Yes, but it is their money, their property. You can't force them to invest it. If they act like Scrooge McDuck and keep all of their money locked tightly in a vault inflation will make them poor anyway.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats not relevant, except as further proof money tied up in foreign banks is far less socially useful than if it were invested locally in something productive.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Sure but the fundamental problem and the reason wealth exists is based on competition for limited resources.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The question of the thread is asking fundamental questions that have to be asked when putting a social system together. If you don't take it in context of the other questions you have to ask then it doesn't make any sense.
For example "What is more valuable, quality of human life or private property?" While the answer isn't in black and white necessarily the answer to that question basically predicts whether or not redistribution of wealth is necessary or not.
People have such basic but differing views about what is/is not important in a society that a poll doesn't make any sense without a definition of terms.
I don't think you'll be able to set the average to where everyone can be happy.
And while we are in this vein of thought, the Inuits, Apache and other Native American peoples would leave their old and infirm behind...a society where wealth had no meaning, or as close to it as I believe. So maybe it's the concept of self sacrifice we really ought to be focusing on.
Last edited by Pug (2009-11-09 17:45:46)
You can encourage them by adjusting the tax system, the point of the thread.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, but it is their money, their property. You can't force them to invest it. If they act like Scrooge McDuck and keep all of their money locked tightly in a vault inflation will make them poor anyway.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-09 22:02:48)
Fuck Israel
That's one of the first things Barry O went after.. http://www.reuters.com/article/politics … 1B20081110Dilbert_X wrote:
And who should pay for it?Kmarion wrote:
Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?
Also, should people be allowed to accumulate unlimited wealth and stick it in Swiss banks where it does no good?
This has fucked up a good part of Africa for example.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Haha, I just realized I misread what he meant by everyone. I thought he meant zero unemployment, not that everyone capable of working in a society was employed in something. The former is easily explained by basic macroeconomics; the latter not as much.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Basic macro says obscene, economic-apocalyptic inflation haha.nukchebi0 wrote:
Basic macroeconomics doesn't answer this?CameronPoe wrote:
Pray tell how do capitalists acquire additional labour if everyone is employed?
/immigration aside
How can a plain no be anything but a general answer when the question is so open to interpretation? ... never said it wasn'tKmarion wrote:
Well, I guess it's about as general as your answer.. twice now. The question was deliberately general, open for interpretation.Varegg wrote:
No it isn't and the question to both is really no ...Spark wrote:
This is the right question.
These questions is to general tbh ... think it was FM that brought it up some pages ago ... first you have to define what kind of society you want ...
Until the values of the society in question is defined you really can't answer those two questions any differently, if it rather was "is a safety net necessary in our present US capitalistic society?" (just as an example) ... then the answer would be yes and followed by a proper reasoning for why it should be yes of course ...
Proper reasoning is what lacks the most on this forum but we both agree on that
Wait behind the line ..............................................................