3 ms·
>In such an unregulated capitalism system the producer would only obtain wealth by freely trading. It is the state intervention which creates the conditions for
by vannevar 5y ago
>In such an unregulated capitalism system the producer would only obtain wealth by freely trading. It is the state intervention which creates the conditions for the centralization of wealth.
No. You can concentrate massive amounts of wealth simply by freely trading. As you get wealthier, it gets easier to accumulate additional wealth. This is the essential feedback loop of capitalism. It's a feature, not a bug, and it is readily modeled (see, eg, https://www.wealthinequality.info/ https://www.wealthinequality.info/). But it causes significant social problems if left unchecked, as we are seeing today.
- aww_dang 5y agoNot only is modeling ridiculous in the context of human action, the model itself is loaded. It only allows individuals to receive payments which are a fraction of their existing balance. Therefore, under this model individuals wouldn't be able to receive a paycheck greater than their bank balance. So much for the rhetoric of living "paycheck to paycheck". >1. All people (or, in model-speak, “agents”) start with equal wealth. 2. For each transaction, choose two agents at random. 3. Calculate a percentage of the poorer agent’s wealth. This percentage will be the amount exchanged. (If they have the same wealth, it doesn’t matter which you choose. This will be the amount exchanged.) 4. Randomly choose which of the two agents will receive the exchanged wealth and which will lose it. While inequality is a symptom of a dysfunctional financial system, equality isn't a good unto itself. Systems which institutionalize inequality through cronyism are the problem. Not surprisingly, these half-baked economic models are used to double down on interventionism, resulting in further cronyism.