3 ms·

It would be very hard to implement a capitalism with even distribution. By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, acc

It would be very hard to implement a capitalism with even distribution. By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else. So you need mechanisms to always redistribute the capital to avoid this problem and balance the system. But capitalists will battle these machanisms to gain efficiency, and you will be in a rate race between the redistribution measures and accumulation workaround. Since creating new redisitribution mechanisms is way slower than implementing the workarounds, eventually the system won't be evenly distributed. Hence the rat races between taxes, and taxe evasion.

anexprogrammer 11y ago
Well, a fair starting point would be a basic income. Capitalism can still do its thing, but all those people disrupted by the rise of the robots would still get to eat. As of right now the pendulum is too far on the side of inequality, yet governments are unwilling or unable to correct. Probably a combination of both.
Gabriel_h 11y ago
"By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else." I agree with the first sentence but the second assumes the economy is zero-sum. This is only true to a certain extent within some domains, like ownership of physical land.
- sametmax 11y ago
  Not I don't money is zero zum. But in the end, what you can exchange for it is. The current virtual nature of money has nothing to do with it, it's just yet another mecahnisme to accumulate capital, in the form of the potential of things you can acquire represented by a number. This potential is virtual, and moving, it's a (broken) mecanisme, but the things you can buy with it are not.
Houshalter 11y ago
Many countries have successfully implemented high taxes. Even the US had very high taxes at one time. Although there was lots of tax evasion, the distribution of wealth was much more even and CEOs were paid much less than they are today. A basic income is totally possible and would vastly level the distribution of wealth.

anexprogrammer 11y ago

Well, a fair starting point would be a basic income. Capitalism can still do its thing, but all those people disrupted by the rise of the robots would still get to eat. As of right now the pendulum is too far on the side of inequality, yet governments are unwilling or unable to correct. Probably a combination of both.

Gabriel_h 11y ago

"By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else." I agree with the first sentence but the second assumes the economy is zero-sum. This is only true to a certain extent within some domains, like ownership of physical land.

sametmax 11y ago
Not I don't money is zero zum. But in the end, what you can exchange for it is. The current virtual nature of money has nothing to do with it, it's just yet another mecahnisme to accumulate capital, in the form of the potential of things you can acquire represented by a number. This potential is virtual, and moving, it's a (broken) mecanisme, but the things you can buy with it are not.

Houshalter 11y ago

Many countries have successfully implemented high taxes. Even the US had very high taxes at one time. Although there was lots of tax evasion, the distribution of wealth was much more even and CEOs were paid much less than they are today. A basic income is totally possible and would vastly level the distribution of wealth.