8 ms·

I've never understood why the structural flaw of unfettered capitalism isn't obvious to most people. The rich will keep getting richer, at the expense of peasa

by NTDF9 8y ago

I've never understood why the structural flaw of unfettered capitalism isn't obvious to most people. The rich will keep getting richer, at the expense of peasants.

LyndsySimon 8y ago
> The rich will keep getting richer, at the expense of peasants. Historically, the second half of that assertion is not borne out.
- ionised 8y ago
  How so? The wealthy reap mnore and more of the benefits of the economy than the average person, in ever increasing measures. The fact that a working class person might now have access to 4k TVs and new cars on finance doesn't change the fact that overall, their share in the prosperity of their nation in shrinking, even though it might seem like gradual improvement. Luxuiries don't mean shit when you can't save, afford to treat a major illness or have to work two jobs to pay the rent. Half of the US doesn't even have any savings and are in a state of persistent debt servitude.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > The wealthy reap mnore and more of the benefits of the economy than the average person, in ever increasing measures. The success of some does not mean that others have been defeated, or forced into a position where they are worse than before. This fallacy is often repeated by people obsessed with egalitarian views, where they consider any difference in access to resources (even those which have been earned through hard work and not squandered away) as being somehow a major injustice. Yet, just because some multimilionaire wastes wads of cash in conspicuous consumption that doesn't mean that societies based on capitalism don't enjoy humanity's highest quality of life and access to goods and services, to the point that some are even considered by "the people" as being infinite and a god-given right.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      In this particular case it does, though. It's very obvious when you contrast worker productivity with quality of life gains - it's clear that workers today are left with substantially less of the wealth that they produce in the economy than they did, say, 50 years ago. In absolute terms, that smaller proportion translates to some gains, but that's little consolation. If you used to earn $100, but someone stole $40 of it every time, and now you earn $200, but someone steals $120 of it every time, you're technically better off... but the guy who steals money from you is clearly reaping more benefits at your expense even so.
      - geezerjay 8y ago
        > substantially less of the wealth that they produce That line of reasoning makes no sense at all because it also implies that workers would also be responsible for all the wealth destroyed by the course of their work, which was very substantial in the dotcom burst. But somehow egalitarian arguments are never made in regards to any support to share the burden of a financial investment that goes bust, and the focus is on all the envy around how their neighbor profited from an investment they never made themselves.
        ionised 8y ago
        > That line of reasoning makes no sense at all because it also implies that workers would also be responsible for all the wealth destroyed by the course of their work I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, or how it's relevant to what the person you replied to said. > But somehow egalitarian arguments are never made in regards to any support to share the burden of a financial investment that goes bust, and the focus is on all the envy around how their neighbor profited from an investment they never made themselves. 1. We don't really get a choice in that do we? Most people can't afford to invest precisely because the problems we are telling you about here; and that includes the working and disappearing middle classes that can't even save effectively due to stagnant wages that don't reflect their increased productivity. 2. On the few occasions where 'egalitarianism' as you keep putting it, is actually applied in a 'share the burden' fashion, it appears to be when massive, wealthy companies need a bail out from the tax payer after what amounts to obscenely reckless behaviour. The name of the current capitalist game seems to be to privatise the profits and socialise the losses. I keep hearing people say the econonomy is no zero-sum, without ever explaining it. There is a finite amnount of wealth in the world today. There will be a finite amount of wealth tomorrow, and so on. Each and every day, your share of that daily amount decreases, while owners of capital increase exponentially. Since the financial crash the richest in society have seen massive gains while the working and middle classes have been hit hardest, many even making wages barely competetive with levels in 1970. I'm sure your assertion that there is plenty to go around will make those people feel better as they go yet another year without any real improvement in their income.
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    Even if most people saw their share of the aggregate wealth shrink, they are still individually wealthier; this is not a zero-sum game, there is more wealth in society now than there has ever been. It is fine to argue that the system is unfair in how that wealth is distributed, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the debate is not about whether or not people are better off, it is about the degree to which they are better off. Remember that a century ago plagues were considered a fact of life in America, and today we are arguing about whether or not people can afford treatments for rare illnesses (I personally believe we could do a better job of giving people access to life-saving care, but the fact that we even have such a debate is a sign of how wealthy our civilization has become).
    - ionised 8y ago
      > Even if most people saw their share of the aggregate wealth shrink, they are still individually wealthier What exactly do you think the end result of that trend is if it continues? You're framing this argument as if any increase in individual wealth is to be lauded and celebrated. Most people don't think that way. All people will see, is their meagre wealth increases (if they are even lucky enough to have seen that) and the kind of increases seen by the top tiers in society. They'll feel angry, depressed and feel like its an injustice. Then the social contract breaks down, which it already is. You can keep pretending like there isn't any problem with how wealth is distributed currently, but you won't be able to forever.
      - betterunix2 8y ago
        It really depends on the rate at which aggregate wealth grows, and the rate at which an ordinary person's share of that wealth shrinks. There is no reason the trend could not continue indefinitely upward, with the poor living better and better lives while still receiving a smaller share of society's wealth. Again, this is not zero-sum -- everyone is going to gain, but some might gain more than others. Edit: I am not arguing that the current system is problem-free, only that it has benefited the vast majority people, even if most people do not perceive those benefits or if they are jealous when they see the benefits accumulated by the rich. I suspect people would be much angrier if they were transported back in time and had to deal with the world as it used to exist, when people were poorer at every level of society. I am not claiming to have a political answer, but the facts are not easily denied: at every level of society people are wealthier today compared with the past.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Historically, the world's "peasants" are enjoying the best quality of life in humanity's history, even if the gap on paper is widening. Capitalism is far from perfect but it seems to be the best system we've come up with so far.
- decentrality 8y ago
  Lions in the desert are smarter than we are then. We've "built" a far less quality world around us than even ants, bees, apes, birds. They at least have authentic bonds left. We have arrangements and schemes.
  - decentrality 8y ago
    I sincerely wish I were wrong.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    I think that human freedom and authenticity might be a little higher than bees.
    - decentrality 8y ago
      If we judge based on engagement? Can we be sure who is more invested? Regardless of the unknowns there, can we ascertain intrinsic loyalty and/or belonging and/or commensurate reward to investment and will/self contribution? I'm obviously attributing a lot to their mode of being. But if it's even remotely close to true, you don't think we have a lot to learn?
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        Bees are biological automatons without even the illusion of free will, and their association with each other is not comparable to society. We might have some things to learn about biochemistry or supply chain management or something, but they're not exactly philosophical analogues.
  - 8y ago
thelasthuman 8y ago
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm This is a short story I think may be relevant. Some commenters below seem okay with the growing inequity in society so long as people have a better quality of life compared to the past. Is that how we measure progress in our unprecedented information age society? to a past that can't relate to the present? IMO don't let what was be a guide for what could be. If people always did that we wouldn't have the internet to comment on.

by NTDF9 8y ago

I've never understood why the structural flaw of unfettered capitalism isn't obvious to most people. The rich will keep getting richer, at the expense of peasants.

LyndsySimon 8y ago

> The rich will keep getting richer, at the expense of peasants. Historically, the second half of that assertion is not borne out.

ionised 8y ago
How so? The wealthy reap mnore and more of the benefits of the economy than the average person, in ever increasing measures. The fact that a working class person might now have access to 4k TVs and new cars on finance doesn't change the fact that overall, their share in the prosperity of their nation in shrinking, even though it might seem like gradual improvement. Luxuiries don't mean shit when you can't save, afford to treat a major illness or have to work two jobs to pay the rent. Half of the US doesn't even have any savings and are in a state of persistent debt servitude.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > The wealthy reap mnore and more of the benefits of the economy than the average person, in ever increasing measures. The success of some does not mean that others have been defeated, or forced into a position where they are worse than before. This fallacy is often repeated by people obsessed with egalitarian views, where they consider any difference in access to resources (even those which have been earned through hard work and not squandered away) as being somehow a major injustice. Yet, just because some multimilionaire wastes wads of cash in conspicuous consumption that doesn't mean that societies based on capitalism don't enjoy humanity's highest quality of life and access to goods and services, to the point that some are even considered by "the people" as being infinite and a god-given right.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    In this particular case it does, though. It's very obvious when you contrast worker productivity with quality of life gains - it's clear that workers today are left with substantially less of the wealth that they produce in the economy than they did, say, 50 years ago. In absolute terms, that smaller proportion translates to some gains, but that's little consolation. If you used to earn $100, but someone stole $40 of it every time, and now you earn $200, but someone steals $120 of it every time, you're technically better off... but the guy who steals money from you is clearly reaping more benefits at your expense even so.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > substantially less of the wealth that they produce That line of reasoning makes no sense at all because it also implies that workers would also be responsible for all the wealth destroyed by the course of their work, which was very substantial in the dotcom burst. But somehow egalitarian arguments are never made in regards to any support to share the burden of a financial investment that goes bust, and the focus is on all the envy around how their neighbor profited from an investment they never made themselves.
      - ionised 8y ago
        > That line of reasoning makes no sense at all because it also implies that workers would also be responsible for all the wealth destroyed by the course of their work I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, or how it's relevant to what the person you replied to said. > But somehow egalitarian arguments are never made in regards to any support to share the burden of a financial investment that goes bust, and the focus is on all the envy around how their neighbor profited from an investment they never made themselves. 1. We don't really get a choice in that do we? Most people can't afford to invest precisely because the problems we are telling you about here; and that includes the working and disappearing middle classes that can't even save effectively due to stagnant wages that don't reflect their increased productivity. 2. On the few occasions where 'egalitarianism' as you keep putting it, is actually applied in a 'share the burden' fashion, it appears to be when massive, wealthy companies need a bail out from the tax payer after what amounts to obscenely reckless behaviour. The name of the current capitalist game seems to be to privatise the profits and socialise the losses. I keep hearing people say the econonomy is no zero-sum, without ever explaining it. There is a finite amnount of wealth in the world today. There will be a finite amount of wealth tomorrow, and so on. Each and every day, your share of that daily amount decreases, while owners of capital increase exponentially. Since the financial crash the richest in society have seen massive gains while the working and middle classes have been hit hardest, many even making wages barely competetive with levels in 1970. I'm sure your assertion that there is plenty to go around will make those people feel better as they go yet another year without any real improvement in their income.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  Even if most people saw their share of the aggregate wealth shrink, they are still individually wealthier; this is not a zero-sum game, there is more wealth in society now than there has ever been. It is fine to argue that the system is unfair in how that wealth is distributed, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the debate is not about whether or not people are better off, it is about the degree to which they are better off. Remember that a century ago plagues were considered a fact of life in America, and today we are arguing about whether or not people can afford treatments for rare illnesses (I personally believe we could do a better job of giving people access to life-saving care, but the fact that we even have such a debate is a sign of how wealthy our civilization has become).
  - ionised 8y ago
    > Even if most people saw their share of the aggregate wealth shrink, they are still individually wealthier What exactly do you think the end result of that trend is if it continues? You're framing this argument as if any increase in individual wealth is to be lauded and celebrated. Most people don't think that way. All people will see, is their meagre wealth increases (if they are even lucky enough to have seen that) and the kind of increases seen by the top tiers in society. They'll feel angry, depressed and feel like its an injustice. Then the social contract breaks down, which it already is. You can keep pretending like there isn't any problem with how wealth is distributed currently, but you won't be able to forever.
    - betterunix2 8y ago
      It really depends on the rate at which aggregate wealth grows, and the rate at which an ordinary person's share of that wealth shrinks. There is no reason the trend could not continue indefinitely upward, with the poor living better and better lives while still receiving a smaller share of society's wealth. Again, this is not zero-sum -- everyone is going to gain, but some might gain more than others. Edit: I am not arguing that the current system is problem-free, only that it has benefited the vast majority people, even if most people do not perceive those benefits or if they are jealous when they see the benefits accumulated by the rich. I suspect people would be much angrier if they were transported back in time and had to deal with the world as it used to exist, when people were poorer at every level of society. I am not claiming to have a political answer, but the facts are not easily denied: at every level of society people are wealthier today compared with the past.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

Historically, the world's "peasants" are enjoying the best quality of life in humanity's history, even if the gap on paper is widening. Capitalism is far from perfect but it seems to be the best system we've come up with so far.

decentrality 8y ago
Lions in the desert are smarter than we are then. We've "built" a far less quality world around us than even ants, bees, apes, birds. They at least have authentic bonds left. We have arrangements and schemes.
- decentrality 8y ago
  I sincerely wish I were wrong.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  I think that human freedom and authenticity might be a little higher than bees.
  - decentrality 8y ago
    If we judge based on engagement? Can we be sure who is more invested? Regardless of the unknowns there, can we ascertain intrinsic loyalty and/or belonging and/or commensurate reward to investment and will/self contribution? I'm obviously attributing a lot to their mode of being. But if it's even remotely close to true, you don't think we have a lot to learn?
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      Bees are biological automatons without even the illusion of free will, and their association with each other is not comparable to society. We might have some things to learn about biochemistry or supply chain management or something, but they're not exactly philosophical analogues.
- 8y ago

thelasthuman 8y ago

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm This is a short story I think may be relevant. Some commenters below seem okay with the growing inequity in society so long as people have a better quality of life compared to the past. Is that how we measure progress in our unprecedented information age society? to a past that can't relate to the present? IMO don't let what was be a guide for what could be. If people always did that we wouldn't have the internet to comment on.