4 ms·
i could actually respect libertarians if you guys would stop pretending that trickle down is a thing and embraced that a society with .1% superrich, 19-20% well
by tekmate 9y ago
i could actually respect libertarians if you guys would stop pretending that trickle down is a thing and embraced that a society with .1% superrich, 19-20% well off experts and 80% serfs is the natural endgame of your ideology
- jeffbax 9y agoDon't blame libertarianism for the state having broken the market so badly that wealth inevitably gets funneled to the few. Crony capitalism is not libertarian, rabidly competitive markets are. The natural end of that is generally going to be prosperity across the board, and hopefully a government financially solvent enough to actually pay for those in need and essential services, all of which should be lower as a result of a better market doing much of that naturally.
- tekmate 9y agolibertarianism in action IS crony capitalism pretending anything else is akin to talking about how "real communism has never been tried"
- xixixao 9y agoI have never seen even a simple argument for why your second paragraph should be true. On the other hand I understand the principle that money makes more money (the principle of investment and ROI), and I don't see how "competitive market" tackles this. It basically feels like the capitalism starts off from fairly-level playing field, but over time becomes more and more unstable, the gap ever-widening. We have already seen it fall (at the beginning of communist regimes), and I'm afraid we'll see it fall again. That's a pessimist view, which I hope won't turn out to be true, but I'd be interested in exploring alternatives.
- hueving 9y agoIn truly competitive markets it wouldn't be so easy to park money for guaranteed returns.
- nine_k 9y agoisn't it pretty hard by now, BTW? Look at all these negative return rates in huge banks.
- richardknop 9y agoLook at insane bull markets last couple of years. Rich people don’t have their money just parked in bank accounts. They own real estate, land, stocks so they benefit greatly while majority of population benefits very little from ever higher highs in the stock market. Basically rich people control most of the stuff which generates passive income without the need of labour which causes ever widending gap between the rich and everybody else and shrinking of middle class.
- cloverich 9y ago> the principle that money makes more money (the principle of investment and ROI), and I don't see how "competitive market" tackles this. It doesn't address that because it doesn't make that argument, in that way. One of its starting axioms is that economy is a positive sum game. In the case of your statement, it might argue that (in the very general sense) money makes more money in a positive sum way -- more total wealth in the economy. Then to the latter it merely says that business that are better at making money (and generally, wealth) get to out compete those that don't. Its premise is it optimizes for wealth creation of the entire economy. I think that's the place to take the argument -- either that you fundamentally disagree with that premise or some outcome of it. > It basically feels like the capitalism starts off from fairly-level playing field Historically I don't think so. I"m not expert but read a lot and I'm currently under the impression that economies were historically locked down by government or tightly coupled government / mercantile entities.
- fineng123 9y ago> Historically I don't think so. WWII was a great leveling of the playing field. There are many times in history when Gini coefficients dropped precipitously. All the evidence points to the fact that wealth tends to accumulate in capitalist economies until crises or government intervention prevents it.
- oblio 9y agoWhat happens in libertarianism with under performers?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- QAPereo 9y agoSoylent finally gets that ‘Green’ variety we all crave? Edit: Love your name, love the reference.
- jellicle 9y agoI don't think you have any idea what "libertarianism" is, as most of your post describes a well-functioning social democracy, which is the exact opposite of libertarianism.
- cgmg 9y agoWhy do you claim it's the "exact opposite"?
- coldtea 9y ago>Don't blame libertarianism for the state having broken the market so badly that wealth inevitably gets funneled to the few. It's not a market problem. Even in a perfect market, a rich person would have most of its assets sitting or slowly moving, whereas a middle/working class person would spend their income. So one gets the economy moving, while too much concentrated wealth stifles it.
- nine_k 9y agoA rich person would have most of their assets invested, existing in the form of factory equipment, buildingsin active use, truck fleets, etc. That is, pretty much moving.
- coldtea 9y ago>A rich person would have most of their assets invested, existing in the form of factory equipment, buildings in active use, truck fleets, etc. That is, pretty much moving. Only if they're so inclined and even only part (they'll keep large parts in less risky form, including land etc -- also not sure how "investing" in "buildings in active use" is not rentierism and how it helps the economy. Whereas the middle/working class have no other option but to put the majority of their income directly in the economy again (buy things to live). And that's not even taking into account the fact that the rich could very well invest elsewhere, or hide their money in tax havens, invest in foreign housing markets, and such, in which case the society they live in, and which they make their money, gets zilch of those money. Again, not the case for middle/working class people. But assuming that the rich did invest most of their money, that would still have the problem of the rich calling the shots (through their investments and wealth), which is less of a problem in a less unequal society.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nikanj 9y agoRoyalty, bourgeoisie and peasants?
- lr4444lr 9y agoTrickle down is not the libertarian ideology. No serious academic economist AFAIK actively promotes "trickle down". It's a left-leaning strawman.
- gpvos 9y agoRight-wingers (not necessarily libertarians) use it in the media all the time.
- lr4444lr 9y agoReally? When? I learned that the term was coined in derision to Reagan-era policies.
- fineng123 9y agoYeah they would never say that out loud that guy is full of shit
- selectodude 9y agohttps://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/09/gary-cohn-trickle-down-is-good-for-the-economy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/09/gary-cohn-trickle-down-is-go... "And we see the whole trickle-down through the economy, and that's good for the economy." That's Gary Cohn, the chief economic advisor for Donald Trump.
- leetcrew 9y agothe term "trickle down economics" is to the right as "political correctness" is to the left. both terms were created as strawmen to smear the other side's position.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoWithout the rent seeking enabled by government-enforced ownership of natural resources, inequality would be greatly diminished. My biggest problem with most libertarians is that they act as if the government's largest and most pervasive intervention in free markets is just a natural law and then claim that any intervention to mitigate the effects of that intervention is a horrible infringement on freedom.