3 ms·

That’s not capitalism. That’s some kind of meritocratic (anti?-)utopia. Capitalism is when you can do with your property whatever you want including giving it a

That’s not capitalism. That’s some kind of meritocratic (anti?-)utopia. Capitalism is when you can do with your property whatever you want including giving it away to whomever you want.

oblio 5y ago
Capitalism ideally means ideal free markets, free of distortion. Starting with market distorting money from birth by definition... distorts markets.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  A mere change in market equilibrium doesn’t constitute a market distortion.
  - oblio 5y ago
    You can label anything "a mere change in market equilibrium", apparently even someone inheriting more money than the GDP of an average sized country ...
    - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
      The magnitude doesn't matter, it is a qualitatively different phenomenon. This provides a definition of a market distortions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_distortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_distortion This may help understand why it is defined this particular way and why it excludes inheritance and other wealth transfers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    I'd argue that any significant wealth inequality constitutes a market distortion. It undermines the "wisdom of the crowd" that underpins capitalism.
    - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
      But it has nothing to do with inheritance as wealth inequality would exist even before inheritance.
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        It does have something to do with inheritance. Inheritance directly causes wealth inequality because some people inherit money while others don't (and the amounts inherited vary widely). It's not the only mechanisms which causes wealth inequality, but it is one of them.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  That's not how that works. It's just the opposite. If someone doesn't expect to live much longer but can still provide a significant amount of value to others, their incentive to do it is that they can decide how the money gets used, i.e. they can give it to their kids or otherwise choose who gets it after they're not around to use it anymore. Take that away and you take away their incentive to earn money they soon won't be alive to use themselves, which is a huge distortion. Meanwhile people starting off with money allows them to use it, but that doesn't imply inefficiency. They don't lack the incentive to use it for something productive.
- pmontra 5y ago
  Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production vs collective ownership, which is communism. Everything else is a consequence. I can think of state owned companies competing on price or privately owned companies colluding in a cartel to keep prices up or down, basically with no market, or any other combination. Even China's market way to socialism.
lovich 5y ago
If you’re dead you don’t get to make decisions anymore. These sorts of arguments would have more weight if the parents actually transferred the wealth earlier than their death or shortly before it, but they want to retain all the power that comes with that capital and then pick the winners in the next round of the economy by bequeathing it to their children. If we want any sort of system even approaching a meritocracy then you should not be able to will away such vast estates that people can control entire companies or never work again a day in their life solely off the inherited assets
- leetcrew 5y ago
  if the "after death" silliness is your main concern here, that seems easy to satisfy with the abstraction of a will or trust that is set up before death. personally I find it pretty reasonable that I get to decide who gets the lion's share of assets I have worked for my whole life. at the same time, it seems bad when enormous amounts of wealth are passed down over generations (and having known a couple people in this situation, it seems bad for them too). the question is, where do we strike the balance?
  - lovich 5y ago
    You might find it reasonable, but it’s not meritocratic at all to will it away to someone else. You also are effecting society in a negative fashion after you are dead and gone and no longer have to deal with the consequences. Setting up a trust where the money removed before you’re at end of life seems far more acceptable because you are willingly giving up the power associated with the money, but deciding to maintain sole control over that power until you’re done with it and then passing it on to your chosen winner afterwards is antithetical to capitalism working correctly.

That’s not capitalism. That’s some kind of meritocratic (anti?-)utopia. Capitalism is when you can do with your property whatever you want including giving it away to whomever you want.

oblio 5y ago

Capitalism ideally means ideal free markets, free of distortion. Starting with market distorting money from birth by definition... distorts markets.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
A mere change in market equilibrium doesn’t constitute a market distortion.
- oblio 5y ago
  You can label anything "a mere change in market equilibrium", apparently even someone inheriting more money than the GDP of an average sized country ...
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    The magnitude doesn't matter, it is a qualitatively different phenomenon. This provides a definition of a market distortions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_distortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_distortion This may help understand why it is defined this particular way and why it excludes inheritance and other wealth transfers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
- nicoburns 5y ago
  I'd argue that any significant wealth inequality constitutes a market distortion. It undermines the "wisdom of the crowd" that underpins capitalism.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    But it has nothing to do with inheritance as wealth inequality would exist even before inheritance.
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      It does have something to do with inheritance. Inheritance directly causes wealth inequality because some people inherit money while others don't (and the amounts inherited vary widely). It's not the only mechanisms which causes wealth inequality, but it is one of them.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
That's not how that works. It's just the opposite. If someone doesn't expect to live much longer but can still provide a significant amount of value to others, their incentive to do it is that they can decide how the money gets used, i.e. they can give it to their kids or otherwise choose who gets it after they're not around to use it anymore. Take that away and you take away their incentive to earn money they soon won't be alive to use themselves, which is a huge distortion. Meanwhile people starting off with money allows them to use it, but that doesn't imply inefficiency. They don't lack the incentive to use it for something productive.
pmontra 5y ago
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production vs collective ownership, which is communism. Everything else is a consequence. I can think of state owned companies competing on price or privately owned companies colluding in a cartel to keep prices up or down, basically with no market, or any other combination. Even China's market way to socialism.

lovich 5y ago

If you’re dead you don’t get to make decisions anymore. These sorts of arguments would have more weight if the parents actually transferred the wealth earlier than their death or shortly before it, but they want to retain all the power that comes with that capital and then pick the winners in the next round of the economy by bequeathing it to their children. If we want any sort of system even approaching a meritocracy then you should not be able to will away such vast estates that people can control entire companies or never work again a day in their life solely off the inherited assets

leetcrew 5y ago
if the "after death" silliness is your main concern here, that seems easy to satisfy with the abstraction of a will or trust that is set up before death. personally I find it pretty reasonable that I get to decide who gets the lion's share of assets I have worked for my whole life. at the same time, it seems bad when enormous amounts of wealth are passed down over generations (and having known a couple people in this situation, it seems bad for them too). the question is, where do we strike the balance?
- lovich 5y ago
  You might find it reasonable, but it’s not meritocratic at all to will it away to someone else. You also are effecting society in a negative fashion after you are dead and gone and no longer have to deal with the consequences. Setting up a trust where the money removed before you’re at end of life seems far more acceptable because you are willingly giving up the power associated with the money, but deciding to maintain sole control over that power until you’re done with it and then passing it on to your chosen winner afterwards is antithetical to capitalism working correctly.