6 ms·

>Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on the other end of town the same: You and the $30k household are both in the global

>Here is what makes me in a $300k a year household and the $30k household on the other end of town the same: You and the $30k household are both in the global 1%. Over 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. Both of you have social safety nets for food, housing, and healthcare. You live better lives than virtually everyone in the history of the planet has ever lived. That's what makes you the same. >That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one. Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. Socialism has tended to result in the opposite outcome. If you need a refresher course, watch Venezuela unfold right now in real time.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
>Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. What does this even mean? Rome pulled massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty with the free grain dole, not at all capitalist. >If you need a refresher course, watch Venezuela unfold right now in real time. Yep, socialism is the cause of all their problems. In no way is this situation caused by the huge drop in oil prices, something almost entirely outside their control. And Capitalism has never experienced a collapse like theirs...
- pjc50 9y ago
  Venezuela seems to be more straightforward corruption and incompetence, the sort of thing that can ruin any political system left or right.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    This is precisely why socialism is a bad idea. Bad people will always get elected eventually. The solution to this problem is not to hand more control of the nation's capital to a nice pretty centralized target for evil/imcompetent people.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      Bad actors are a problem in any system, which is why the system should be pluralist; but it's entirely possible for bad right-wing actors to get elected. Argentina, rather than Venezuela.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        How can you be more pluralist than by letting each citizen keep their own power?
        pjc50 9y ago
        That's a nice slogan, but empty without an analysis of power relations. Participants in a market are not automatically equal in power! Especially important in the sub-discussion about healthcare that's going on here. There's disparity of information (not every citizen has a complete knowledge of all possible medical specialisations), disparity of capability (medical conditions can be literally incapacitating), and disparity of risk (most medical conditions are mostly randomly distributed).
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        >Participants in a market are not automatically equal in power! Yes, that's true. The world is not fair and we're not all equal in power. How is the solution to that to take 80% of everyone's income and hand over control of it to a select few in government? In a free market system at least each participant is free to walk away from any given transaction. Now you want to take away even that.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        By taking that statement to it's logical endpoint for a start, rather than the crazy libertarian version where "keeping your own power" includes a government that is ensuring what you call your own power stays your own power. Or, "What is Property?"
- kbutler 9y ago
  > >Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. >What does this even mean? It means that the reason there was grain for Rome to give was because of trade and capitalism (as well as some slavery and conquering which impoverish some populations to enrich others). Capitalism (private ownership of means of production) means that I benefit if I provide things that other people want. Trade allows individuals to make exchanges that benefit them. Free trade ensures that exchanges benefit both parties, resulting in an increase of total well-being. > Rome pulled massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty with the free grain dole, not at all capitalist. And Rome periodically put them back into grinding poverty by reducing the size of the grain dole because it was too expensive? Funding consumption can't reduce long term poverty (give a fish vs teach to fish).
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Describing Rome as "capitalist" in the modern sense is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the ancient economy, ignoring the work of Finley and Polanyi. (Also, you spotted that Rome was a slave society, but failed to make the obvious conclusion that slavery precludes free exchange of labour!)
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      >Describing Rome as "capitalist" in the modern sense is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the ancient economy, ignoring the work of Finley and Polanyi. Government took only 5%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#GDP_and_income_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#GDP_and_income_d... In the Scheidel–Friesen economic model, the total annual income generated by the Empire is placed at nearly 20 billion HS, with about 5 percent extracted by central and local government.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        What does the marginal tax rate have to do with it? The economic structure was not similar to modern industrial organisation.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. What does this even mean? Rome pulled massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty with the free grain dole, not at all capitalist. >If you need a refresher course, watch Venezuela unfold right now in real time. Yep, socialism is the cause of all their problems. In no way is this situation caused by the huge drop in oil prices, something almost entirely outside their control. And Capitalism has never experienced a collapse like theirs...

pjc50 9y ago
Venezuela seems to be more straightforward corruption and incompetence, the sort of thing that can ruin any political system left or right.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  This is precisely why socialism is a bad idea. Bad people will always get elected eventually. The solution to this problem is not to hand more control of the nation's capital to a nice pretty centralized target for evil/imcompetent people.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Bad actors are a problem in any system, which is why the system should be pluralist; but it's entirely possible for bad right-wing actors to get elected. Argentina, rather than Venezuela.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      How can you be more pluralist than by letting each citizen keep their own power?
      - pjc50 9y ago
        That's a nice slogan, but empty without an analysis of power relations. Participants in a market are not automatically equal in power! Especially important in the sub-discussion about healthcare that's going on here. There's disparity of information (not every citizen has a complete knowledge of all possible medical specialisations), disparity of capability (medical conditions can be literally incapacitating), and disparity of risk (most medical conditions are mostly randomly distributed).
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        >Participants in a market are not automatically equal in power! Yes, that's true. The world is not fair and we're not all equal in power. How is the solution to that to take 80% of everyone's income and hand over control of it to a select few in government? In a free market system at least each participant is free to walk away from any given transaction. Now you want to take away even that.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        By taking that statement to it's logical endpoint for a start, rather than the crazy libertarian version where "keeping your own power" includes a government that is ensuring what you call your own power stays your own power. Or, "What is Property?"
kbutler 9y ago
> >Capitalism with relatively free trade is the only mechanism in the history of the world to be able to pull massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty. >What does this even mean? It means that the reason there was grain for Rome to give was because of trade and capitalism (as well as some slavery and conquering which impoverish some populations to enrich others). Capitalism (private ownership of means of production) means that I benefit if I provide things that other people want. Trade allows individuals to make exchanges that benefit them. Free trade ensures that exchanges benefit both parties, resulting in an increase of total well-being. > Rome pulled massive numbers of people out of grinding poverty with the free grain dole, not at all capitalist. And Rome periodically put them back into grinding poverty by reducing the size of the grain dole because it was too expensive? Funding consumption can't reduce long term poverty (give a fish vs teach to fish).
- pjc50 9y ago
  Describing Rome as "capitalist" in the modern sense is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the ancient economy, ignoring the work of Finley and Polanyi. (Also, you spotted that Rome was a slave society, but failed to make the obvious conclusion that slavery precludes free exchange of labour!)
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >Describing Rome as "capitalist" in the modern sense is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the ancient economy, ignoring the work of Finley and Polanyi. Government took only 5%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#GDP_and_income_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#GDP_and_income_d... In the Scheidel–Friesen economic model, the total annual income generated by the Empire is placed at nearly 20 billion HS, with about 5 percent extracted by central and local government.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      What does the marginal tax rate have to do with it? The economic structure was not similar to modern industrial organisation.