BF2S Forums Redistribution of wealth

There is alternative to almost every Microsoft product. Yes they do some shady crap..  but so does their #1 competitor (Big Time).

AussieReaper wrote:

You still haven't explained how this law suit was a case of the Government giving Microsoft a helping hand, btw.

It wasn't a real monopoly so government helping it along doesn't apply.

Kmarion wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You still haven't explained how this law suit was a case of the Government giving Microsoft a helping hand, btw.

It wasn't a real monopoly so government helping it along doesn't apply.

Apple files a patent on anything that creates a spark. MS does too but they haven't been nearly as successful.

Apple has more efficient hardware but they've royally screwed the pooch by not opening their software up to more development. I find it funny that yuppies and 'liberals' love the most autocratic computer company in the world. They control everything about their product. MS and PCs basically tossed their stuff out there for anyone to use and develop on and they get demonized. Just a bit ironic.

Kmarion wrote:

It's funny that you say that. MS has not always been that way. In fact, it's only been like that the last year or so, and their stock has turned around. That's not bad considering the market. It's the Google approach. Everyone was dumbfounded when Google came on the block. No one knew how they were going to make money when they give away most of their services. Needless to say it wasn't a problem.

OFC today they credit the Zune HD, Bing, and Windows 7 for the surge in MS.

No, I'm talking about the fact that programming on a PC has always been 1000x easier than it is on a Mac. Their proprietary software has never been open source or even easily viewable but it is a very easy to build upon. Mac is not. If you looked at a video game shelf back in the mid-90s all you saw were games for PC because it was so easy.

Kmarion wrote:

There's no doubt about that. However, that is one of the reasons Mac's are more desirable (to those who want that). All of their support is in house too.. which is one of the reasons they are pricier.

I find it really sad that the more efficient hardware ended up patented by such a control freak of a company. Mac hardware would've been far superior for high end gaming. C'est la vie.

I'll take a more open platform where the sky is the limit any day over the controlled system that is Apple.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I not sure if you not reading what I wrote, or its just outside of your simplistic or perhaps eutopian view view of capitalism and the invisible hand.

But here are my points in a nutshell.

We have the welfare state/ redistribution of wealth because capitalism has certain inherent flaws. There is a balance between the beneficial efficiencies that the market brings to benefit society, and the stability that the welfare state brings. These are necessary because but the flaws make capitalism unstable and prone to self destructive behaviors. Just like the latest financial crisis brought to by deregulation. One solution for those problems are the welfare state/ redistribution of wealth. Frankly I'm not the one with eutopian rose colored glasses, you are, if you think that society will tolerate conditions created by a market that left all on its own. Like I said there is a balance between efficiency and stability the marking line as to the degree of redistribution necessary to achieve that stability is something that is constantly debated and adjusted and that is what I refer to as being organic. I doubt that we will ever be without some form of welfare state unless we have some sort of uber authoritarian govt like a soviet union in which case we will be without property at all which is IMO a form of slavery.


And on the Marx comment... I said that he highlighted certain problems with the destructive nature of capitalism. His economic analysis provided insights that influenced the development social programs and the welfare state which stabilized democracies that utilize market systems. Its his insights not his prophecies on a communist eutopia that I was referring to as having helped save capitalism. And in fact there are large corporations that use "marxian" economic analysis to aid in forecasting... its got nothing to do with communism. But if you've never read anything but john locke or adam smith or taken no more than an econ class in a business school then I guess you wouldn't know any better.


You are right that some of the first programs like unemployment insurance were instituted by an authoritarian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck
Those programs came into existance to head off the rise of socialism and communism... hence the statement that that Marx saved capitalism.

Anyway, Bismarck was attempting to stabilize his society, and today those type of programs perform the same function. To say that we an do without them is really naive.

In a nutshell, no amount of rational thought will ever trump a full belly when it comes to pacifying the poor. And that full belly provides all of us with some stability.

Whoever is willing to overthrow a system based on logic, reason and science for a system based on feelings needs to take a really good look in the mirror to ascertain his own motives.

I do not believe in a capitalistic utopia, I know that it lies outside the realm of reality. The boom and bust cycle you describe happens in any system that is intricately woven and in which the pieces are at least partially dependent on each other. Nothing can fix this, especially the short sighted and willfully ignorant Keynesian theory that our government seems to have fallen hopelessly in love with. I have no problem with programs such as unemployment because they require an initial time investment by the person receiving the benefits. I draw the line at any program that provides money or benefits to people just because they are alive. Why does a person have the right to draw a check every month simply because they breathe? Why do they receive health care benefits? Why do they receive more than they themselves put into the system?

Don't try to rationalize the programs that have been implemented. Some were done with good intentions but the vast majority were implemented to placate the poor and keep them out of crime. None of those programs gives any incentive to advance in society or become a contributor. It's essentially bribery on a massive scale and our political system has become a contest of who can bribe the most people in return for votes every election cycle. It used to be that elections were won based on who had the best ideas, or the best speeches, now they might as well hand out a check at the voting booth. I'm getting off topic here.

It all boils down to personal liberty. Within a socialist system, the individual does not exist or matter. Only the hive matters. I would not choose to live in a world where my talent is for naught and my well being is in the hands of a committee whose decisions are based on feelings. I will not trade my personal freedom for chains held by a majority.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty wrote:

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

I have read much more than just Locke and Smith, thanks

You are not one of these people who look at the welfare state and say evil communist/socialist garbage are you? You really think that the welfare state as it exists is a detriment to individual freedom and the market system or does it in fact help to stabilize society and therefore help to promote the exercise of individual liberty. I agree that individual freedom is paramount, I agree that it needs to be protected, I agree that the tryanny of the majority is a problem whether you are talking about big govt, over taxation or gay marriage. I agree with all that, but the fact remains that society is still made up of a collection of people and if the balance is tipped too far towards the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few then society will become unstable and more radicalized. But I would also state that that concentration of wealth in a market economy is probably inevitable, the key is the balance with how much must be preserved for the rest of society or in some cases given back to the rest of society in order for society to be stable.

Now, when the country is in the trough of a severe economic downturn, that is not the time for reaganomics, its the time for tempering the ill effects of the market on the people. And its capitalism and the market that benefit in the long term from those inconvenient Keynesian theories when the ups and downs of the economic cycle are smoothed out. IMO those welfare programs help stabilize society and therefore are just as necessary to the proper functioning of the market place as the stock market is, and that would make them capitalist programs not socialist programs which is why all western democracies have adopted them. remember we are talking about stabilization programs here that seek out the minimum needed to pacify the citizenary and keep them from becoming radicalized. We are not talking about the creation of economic equality.

Anyway, the op asked if the redistribution of wealth is necessary
My answer is simple, the redistribution of wealth is necessay because it exists in every western democracy that utilizes the market system for allocation of resources. It exists not because its giving something for nothing. The allocation of those resources is providing a benefit to society and IMO the main benefit is stabilization. It exists, therefore it must be necessary otherwise society would disgard it. The market accepts it because it must be beneficial othewise it would be disgarded as an ineffciency.

So getting back to your rant... Why should people draw a check? why should they receive more than they put into the system? its because it has a stabilizing effect, the use of these programs have historical roots and necessity of these programs has not abated... least we forget things like the glass steagall act.

Is it like bribery? yes but probably more like a pacifier. So the answer is that it is necessary and  the only thing left for debate is the efficiency question "what is minimum necessary to gain that pacifying/stabilizing effect?" IMO that minimum amount is found by the hunt and peck and shifting sands method and its hardly laying the groundwork for a socialist state.

Personally, I really don't buy that "they are getting something for nothing argument" whining its just populist popcorn rhetoric used by shortsighted people.
My short answer to those people is that society is stable so STFU and don't rock the boat. (that statement is a general statement, not to you personally so don't take offense)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

You are not one of these people who look at the welfare state and say evil communist/socialist garbage are you? You really think that the welfare state as it exists is a detriment to individual freedom and the market system or does it in fact help to stabilize society and therefore help to promote the exercise of individual liberty. I agree that individual freedom is paramount, I agree that it needs to be protected, I agree that the tryanny of the majority is a problem whether you are talking about big govt, over taxation or gay marriage. I agree with all that, but the fact remains that society is still made up of a collection of people and if the balance is tipped too far towards the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few then society will become unstable and more radicalized. But I would also state that that concentration of wealth in a market economy is probably inevitable, the key is the balance with how much must be preserved for the rest of society or in some cases given back to the rest of society in order for society to be stable.

Now, when the country is in the trough of a severe economic downturn, that is not the time for reaganomics, its the time for tempering the ill effects of the market on the people. And its capitalism and the market that benefit in the long term from those inconvenient Keynesian theories when the ups and downs of the economic cycle are smoothed out. IMO those welfare programs help stabilize society and therefore are just as necessary to the proper functioning of the market place as the stock market is, and that would make them capitalist programs not socialist programs which is why all western democracies have adopted them. remember we are talking about stabilization programs here that seek out the minimum needed to pacify the citizenary and keep them from becoming radicalized. We are not talking about the creation of economic equality.

Anyway, the op asked if the redistribution of wealth is necessary
My answer is simple, the redistribution of wealth is necessay because it exists in every western democracy that utilizes the market system for allocation of resources. It exists not because its giving something for nothing. The allocation of those resources is providing a benefit to society and IMO the main benefit is stabilization. It exists, therefore it must be necessary otherwise society would disgard it. The market accepts it because it must be beneficial othewise it would be disgarded as an ineffciency.

So getting back to your rant... Why should people draw a check? why should they receive more than they put into the system? its because it has a stabilizing effect, the use of these programs have historical roots and necessity of these programs has not abated... least we forget things like the glass steagall act.

Is it like bribery? yes but probably more like a pacifier. So the answer is that it is necessary and  the only thing left for debate is the efficiency question "what is minimum necessary to gain that pacifying/stabilizing effect?" IMO that minimum amount is found by the hunt and peck and shifting sands method and its hardly laying the groundwork for a socialist state.

Personally, I really don't buy that "they are getting something for nothing argument" whining its just populist popcorn rhetoric used by shortsighted people.
My short answer to those people is that society is stable so STFU and don't rock the boat. (that statement is a general statement, not to you personally so don't take offense)

You are neglecting the most important point that Orwell made in the entirety of the book 1984. The 'proles' are dumb and will never rise on their own.

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."

and the paradox and central point:

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

I think he hit it spot on the head. There really is no need to fear a lower class revolt. They're too worried about their next paycheck or whether their football team has won or lost to pay attention to politics for more than a fleeting moment. This is why our government has become so corrupt, there is no ultimate check from the people. So, the only pacification required is the reality that one can reach, with a bit of luck and with a lot of effort, the 'top' in a single lifetime. Fear and bribery don't net you long term benefits, there are too many people playing that game (the church, for instance) and the people have become numb. Give them hope and they will chase it forever. Obama got it half right, he's just taking it in the exact wrong direction.

It's people like you, the people that fear the populist revolt, who will actually bring it about by trying to make them 'aware' of what they 'need'. Funny that.

You know that Orwell was an anarchist right? Homage to Catalonia fighting the fascists in spain and lamenting the failed promises of the communist revolutions. I think he would have viewed the "proles" as shrugging off one master for another.

Anyway two points
1. the promise or dream of success is no doubt a powerful control tool to get people motivated
2. the pacification is more like the safety net, because there are those who will try as hard as they can and they will still fail.

What I am saying is basically a structural functional argument, that the system exists as a result of incremental changes and that each part has a function. When something comes into existence its because its needed, such as the welfare state. Its a program for the preservation of order that is created by co-opting or adopting and adapting the promises of a competing model. By doing so, it moderates and pacifies the population and in doing so it mutes radicalism. The radicals will still be there because as a measure of social control you are only interested spending the minimal amount to bring over enough people over to your side to prevent being overrun. Now, that being said, those are not consious acts of any person, they are simply achieved in the mix of interactions. So what we have today is a result of that interplay. It exists because it must be serving a function and it exists because it must be working.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

You are not one of these people who look at the welfare state and say evil communist/socialist garbage are you? You really think that the welfare state as it exists is a detriment to individual freedom and the market system or does it in fact help to stabilize society and therefore help to promote the exercise of individual liberty. I agree that individual freedom is paramount, I agree that it needs to be protected, I agree that the tryanny of the majority is a problem whether you are talking about big govt, over taxation or gay marriage. I agree with all that, but the fact remains that society is still made up of a collection of people and if the balance is tipped too far towards the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few then society will become unstable and more radicalized. But I would also state that that concentration of wealth in a market economy is probably inevitable, the key is the balance with how much must be preserved for the rest of society or in some cases given back to the rest of society in order for society to be stable.

Now, when the country is in the trough of a severe economic downturn, that is not the time for reaganomics, its the time for tempering the ill effects of the market on the people. And its capitalism and the market that benefit in the long term from those inconvenient Keynesian theories when the ups and downs of the economic cycle are smoothed out. IMO those welfare programs help stabilize society and therefore are just as necessary to the proper functioning of the market place as the stock market is, and that would make them capitalist programs not socialist programs which is why all western democracies have adopted them. remember we are talking about stabilization programs here that seek out the minimum needed to pacify the citizenary and keep them from becoming radicalized. We are not talking about the creation of economic equality.

Anyway, the op asked if the redistribution of wealth is necessary
My answer is simple, the redistribution of wealth is necessay because it exists in every western democracy that utilizes the market system for allocation of resources. It exists not because its giving something for nothing. The allocation of those resources is providing a benefit to society and IMO the main benefit is stabilization. It exists, therefore it must be necessary otherwise society would disgard it. The market accepts it because it must be beneficial othewise it would be disgarded as an ineffciency.

So getting back to your rant... Why should people draw a check? why should they receive more than they put into the system? its because it has a stabilizing effect, the use of these programs have historical roots and necessity of these programs has not abated... least we forget things like the glass steagall act.

Is it like bribery? yes but probably more like a pacifier. So the answer is that it is necessary and  the only thing left for debate is the efficiency question "what is minimum necessary to gain that pacifying/stabilizing effect?" IMO that minimum amount is found by the hunt and peck and shifting sands method and its hardly laying the groundwork for a socialist state.

Personally, I really don't buy that "they are getting something for nothing argument" whining its just populist popcorn rhetoric used by shortsighted people.
My short answer to those people is that society is stable so STFU and don't rock the boat. (that statement is a general statement, not to you personally so don't take offense)

You are neglecting the most important point that Orwell made in the entirety of the book 1984. The 'proles' are dumb and will never rise on their own.

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."

and the paradox and central point:

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

I think he hit it spot on the head. There really is no need to fear a lower class revolt. They're too worried about their next paycheck or whether their football team has won or lost to pay attention to politics for more than a fleeting moment. This is why our government has become so corrupt, there is no ultimate check from the people. So, the only pacification required is the reality that one can reach, with a bit of luck and with a lot of effort, the 'top' in a single lifetime. Fear and bribery don't net you long term benefits, there are too many people playing that game (the church, for instance) and the people have become numb. Give them hope and they will chase it forever. Obama got it half right, he's just taking it in the exact wrong direction.

It's people like you, the people that fear the populist revolt, who will actually bring it about by trying to make them 'aware' of what they 'need'. Funny that.

You know that Orwell was an anarchist right? Homage to Catalonia fighting the fascists in spain and lamenting the failed promises of the communist revolutions. I think he would have viewed the "proles" as shrugging off one master for another.

That is incorrect. Orwell described him as a Socalist and an English Patriot... read some of his lesser known works (the Road to Wigan Pier, Down and Out in Paris and London). And he was not one to throw labels around lightly. Although yes, he didn't like Communism as it turn out under Trotsky and Stalin, who he just felt reduced it to mere nationalism.

In any case, that was the one aspect of 1984 I didn't like - that all revolutions are middle-class revolutions. The Chinese communist uprising wasn't IMO.

Last edited by Spark (2009-11-08 22:19:13)

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>

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.

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.

I don't know how much more clearly I can put this. Universal healthcare = bad. I am not defending it in any way shape or form.

They can be jailed, shot, exported, it depends on the society.

You are still missing the point. I am asking 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.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Taxation does not have to be tiered, it can be flat. Not flat with tax breaks for poor people, flat.

Taxes could only provide services that are of equal value to everyone, such as national defense.

Taxes do not automatically equate with redistribution of wealth. Social programs automatically equate with redistribution of wealth, but people in the liberal context of today in correctly go from A -> C while A -> B is not necessarily true.

You could do that.

It'd be really, really stupid - but there's no reason it couldn't function, to an extent.

It fails to address all sorts of things that are good for overall growth. It would have a massive negative impact on the economy as most people would have much, much less disposable income.

It's doable, but monumentally stupid - which is why no one does it.

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't know how much more clearly I can put this. Universal healthcare = bad. I am not defending it in any way shape or form.

They can be jailed, shot, exported, it depends on the society.

You are still missing the point. I am asking 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.

The % of disposable income is vastly different between the two groups.  The cost of necessities is flat no matter what income bracket you are in.

In the example I provided, where $15k is the cost of necessities, 10% is the tax:

$25k = $25k - $15k - $2.5k (tax) = $7.5k = 30% disposable income
$1M = $1M - $15k - $100k (tax) = $885,000 = 88.5% disposable income

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.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It fails to address all sorts of things that are good for overall growth. It would have a massive negative impact on the economy as most people would have much, much less disposable income.

It's doable, but monumentally stupid - which is why no one does it.

That's not the question now is it?

No, the question is about whether it's necessary (re-distribution of wealth). It's not, but it's extremely beneficial. Mass market consumerism is fuelled by the re-distribution of wealth, which makes the economy grow better.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-11-09 11:45:55)