6 ms·

You're missing the point entirely. The point is, the process which you describe above where pluck and hard work will get you everything is only possible in sta

by phillmv 14y ago

You're missing the point entirely. The point is, the process which you describe above where pluck and hard work will get you everything is only possible in states whose ruling structure is inclusive and not extractive – i.e. you can open a business without having to belong to the aristocracy. The analogy being drawn is that the oligarchic elite in western societies are increasingly seeking ways to patrimonialize the state and whether consciously or not move towards an extractive structure. You require far less pluck and hard work to succeed if you belong to the contemporary 'landed nobility' and, on a vast institutional level state incentives are being redrawn to reward incumbent elites in one way or another.

kamaal 14y ago
I absolutely agree. And its not that very different in India either. To give you an example, being born into a rich family absolutely has some benefits and that is undeniable. My point is how is that default advantage the rich have, a disadvantage to the poor? Unless the poor want it to be, it really can't be. And here is where things go wrong, agreed that no one gets a level playing field and game itself isn't fair to even begin with. The moment you enter the game the advantage is already favoring the rich. But what the game does offer is a way forward to improve your chances of winning if you play well along. Besides it will be nearly impossible in system of economic set up to create a level playing field at the very start and I don't even think that should be the aim of any economic system either.
- phillmv 14y ago
  >The moment you enter the game the advantage is already favoring the rich. If you're progressive, the idea is to try to level the playing fields somewhat. We don't have to equalize them, just try to improve everyone's odds a little bit. >My point is how is that default advantage the rich have, a disadvantage to the poor? Because the more of the total percentage of economic activity gets captured by an oligarchy the less is available for everyone else. Further more, the issue at hand is that across the west we're enacting policies that make tilt the balance even more towards elites.
  - kamaal 14y ago
    >> If you're progressive, the idea is to try to level the playing fields somewhat. We don't have to equalize them, just try to improve everyone's odds a little bit. Correct, but I believe that will come through opportunities. The poor will be given opportunities, but however remember using them and converting them to goodness is really their responsibility. And as a rule of thumb, opportunities always present themselves in the form for some work. I would believe US is far better of at this than any other country I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you people have county schools which are free? Don't you people now have some form national healthcare system? Don't you have social security? I would already consider these as very big advantages compared to many other countries. I mean the government can practically support you when you go broke, and then of course its up to you to take it from there. >>Because the more of the total percentage of economic activity gets captured by an oligarchy the less is available for everyone else. True only if the percentage of wealth created at any time static, which it is definitely not. >>Further more, the issue at hand is that across the west we're enacting policies that make tilt the balance even more towards elites. I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy, because that is good motivator to create more wealth.
    - phillmv 14y ago
      >I would believe US is far better of at this than any other country I know of. It's not a leader overall. It may have the most billionaires, but if you're looking at average outcomes you're probably best off in Norway. >I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy Absolutely. It doesn't work nearly as well otherwise. >The poor will be given opportunities, but however remember using them and converting them to goodness is really their responsibility. Responsibility and availability of opportunities. The more opportunities, the more people benefit. We're talking about increasing the pool of opportunities.
      - twoodfin 14y ago
        We're talking about increasing the pool of opportunities. And what are the progressive schemes for doing that?
- rwallace 14y ago
  When the rich man has an advantage because he worked hard for his money, this is not a disadvantage to the poor - quite the contrary, the result is that society as a whole becomes wealthier. When the rich man has an advantage because he bribed politicians into passing laws that make it illegal for the poor man to open a business without special permission from the government, or to take a better job without a college degree, that most certainly is a disadvantage for the poor - and in the long run for everyone. That is what the article was talking about. It's not that it's wrong to be rich or powerful. It's that it's wrong to use that wealth and power to subvert the machinery of government and create artificial barriers. That is the problem that needs to be fixed.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  My point is how is that default advantage the rich have, a disadvantage to the poor? Unless the poor want it to be, it really can't be. That's true in a fully transparent society. But far less so when some players can rig things in their favor by bribes or benefits-in-kind. The article is not criticizing entrepreneurs, but rentiers, people who extract economic profits rather than normal profits. Normal profits are what you have when markets fulfill their function as price discovery mechanisms. Economic profits are what you get when the dominant market players erect barriers to entry of one sort or another in order to fleece consumers. Although I am no Marxist, you are quite wrong to think that Marx's ideas are irrelevant because he would not understand how wealth functions in the modern world. The product of work has changed, but the fundamentals of capital and production have not altered all that much. If you want proof of this, simply read (or at least browse) Adam Smith's wealth of Nations, which was written long before Marx's birth and which remains an excellent, if extremely wordy, introduction to economics. From the factors of production in a variety of different contexts, basic monetary theory, capital structures of the firm and so on, it remains surprisingly relevant (and readable) today. Marx was certainly aware of this, and while his proposed alternative to capitalism was not really workable, his analysis of capitalism's weaknesses still have considerable merit. People can and do abuse the market system for their own gain distressingly often; I like the capitalist system, but the notion that it operates without fault is distinctly Panglossian.
sounds 14y ago
I almost caught the point you're trying to convey (ignoring the "you're missing the point"). Oligarchic elite in western societies converting the state from inclusive to extractive (consciously or not) is not the _analogy_ being drawn, it is the current state (according to the article). Incentives are not "being redrawn," they already favor the elite. Give the OP a little credit; his addition to the discussion is pretty good.
- phillmv 14y ago
  It always pays off to be an elite. It's just even better now than it was in the 1950s-1970s.
  - kamaal 14y ago
    >>It always pays off to be an elite. Sure it does. But the point is to become an elite you first need to do something to get there. Its not like a lottery selects a few people and just gives them money. Its their money and earn it. Therefore even the distinction of elite. They earn it, so they get it. Just like everybody else can.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      > Its not like a lottery selects a few people and just gives them money. Being born is pretty much such a lottery.
    - stch 14y ago
      You don't think who your parents are is a consequence of luck? Did you just will yourself to become that particular fetus?
    - lilsunnybee 14y ago
      People from other classes can't easily acquire money, even through hard work and pluck, if enough artificial barriers are created to block their entry into the upper class.
Gormo 14y ago
> states whose ruling structure is inclusive and not extractive – i.e. you can open a business without having to belong to the aristocracy. Which demonstrates just how much the original article gets the issue exactly backwards. It's not the "1%" of income-earners that threaten to transform our 'inclusive' society into an 'extractive' one; the threat comes from the growing regulatory state itself - which the author seems to imply is the solution rather than the problem. The increasing politicization of every element of society - from economics to education to interpersonal relationships - is the danger; in many jurisdictions in the United States, you already need permits, zoning variances, professional licenses, etc. to initiate even the simplest economic venture. In most of the US, education is already firmly dominated by political institutions, and is increasingly rigid and uniform in structure and content. This situation will inevitably lead to the development of some kind of "extractive" elite - regardless of whether or not that elite ultimately corresponds to those the media currently label "the 1%" - if we can't find a way to reverse it. It's this politicization of society that threatens to subjugate and exclude everyone who isn't a member of the dominant political class - it's the centralization of power, and not the distribution of wealth, that we need to be concerned about.

by phillmv 14y ago

kamaal 14y ago

I absolutely agree. And its not that very different in India either. To give you an example, being born into a rich family absolutely has some benefits and that is undeniable. My point is how is that default advantage the rich have, a disadvantage to the poor? Unless the poor want it to be, it really can't be. And here is where things go wrong, agreed that no one gets a level playing field and game itself isn't fair to even begin with. The moment you enter the game the advantage is already favoring the rich. But what the game does offer is a way forward to improve your chances of winning if you play well along. Besides it will be nearly impossible in system of economic set up to create a level playing field at the very start and I don't even think that should be the aim of any economic system either.

phillmv 14y ago
>The moment you enter the game the advantage is already favoring the rich. If you're progressive, the idea is to try to level the playing fields somewhat. We don't have to equalize them, just try to improve everyone's odds a little bit. >My point is how is that default advantage the rich have, a disadvantage to the poor? Because the more of the total percentage of economic activity gets captured by an oligarchy the less is available for everyone else. Further more, the issue at hand is that across the west we're enacting policies that make tilt the balance even more towards elites.
- kamaal 14y ago
  >> If you're progressive, the idea is to try to level the playing fields somewhat. We don't have to equalize them, just try to improve everyone's odds a little bit. Correct, but I believe that will come through opportunities. The poor will be given opportunities, but however remember using them and converting them to goodness is really their responsibility. And as a rule of thumb, opportunities always present themselves in the form for some work. I would believe US is far better of at this than any other country I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you people have county schools which are free? Don't you people now have some form national healthcare system? Don't you have social security? I would already consider these as very big advantages compared to many other countries. I mean the government can practically support you when you go broke, and then of course its up to you to take it from there. >>Because the more of the total percentage of economic activity gets captured by an oligarchy the less is available for everyone else. True only if the percentage of wealth created at any time static, which it is definitely not. >>Further more, the issue at hand is that across the west we're enacting policies that make tilt the balance even more towards elites. I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy, because that is good motivator to create more wealth.
  - phillmv 14y ago
    >I would believe US is far better of at this than any other country I know of. It's not a leader overall. It may have the most billionaires, but if you're looking at average outcomes you're probably best off in Norway. >I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy Absolutely. It doesn't work nearly as well otherwise. >The poor will be given opportunities, but however remember using them and converting them to goodness is really their responsibility. Responsibility and availability of opportunities. The more opportunities, the more people benefit. We're talking about increasing the pool of opportunities.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      We're talking about increasing the pool of opportunities. And what are the progressive schemes for doing that?
rwallace 14y ago
When the rich man has an advantage because he worked hard for his money, this is not a disadvantage to the poor - quite the contrary, the result is that society as a whole becomes wealthier. When the rich man has an advantage because he bribed politicians into passing laws that make it illegal for the poor man to open a business without special permission from the government, or to take a better job without a college degree, that most certainly is a disadvantage for the poor - and in the long run for everyone. That is what the article was talking about. It's not that it's wrong to be rich or powerful. It's that it's wrong to use that wealth and power to subvert the machinery of government and create artificial barriers. That is the problem that needs to be fixed.
anigbrowl 14y ago
My point is how is that default advantage the rich have, a disadvantage to the poor? Unless the poor want it to be, it really can't be. That's true in a fully transparent society. But far less so when some players can rig things in their favor by bribes or benefits-in-kind. The article is not criticizing entrepreneurs, but rentiers, people who extract economic profits rather than normal profits. Normal profits are what you have when markets fulfill their function as price discovery mechanisms. Economic profits are what you get when the dominant market players erect barriers to entry of one sort or another in order to fleece consumers. Although I am no Marxist, you are quite wrong to think that Marx's ideas are irrelevant because he would not understand how wealth functions in the modern world. The product of work has changed, but the fundamentals of capital and production have not altered all that much. If you want proof of this, simply read (or at least browse) Adam Smith's wealth of Nations, which was written long before Marx's birth and which remains an excellent, if extremely wordy, introduction to economics. From the factors of production in a variety of different contexts, basic monetary theory, capital structures of the firm and so on, it remains surprisingly relevant (and readable) today. Marx was certainly aware of this, and while his proposed alternative to capitalism was not really workable, his analysis of capitalism's weaknesses still have considerable merit. People can and do abuse the market system for their own gain distressingly often; I like the capitalist system, but the notion that it operates without fault is distinctly Panglossian.

sounds 14y ago

I almost caught the point you're trying to convey (ignoring the "you're missing the point"). Oligarchic elite in western societies converting the state from inclusive to extractive (consciously or not) is not the _analogy_ being drawn, it is the current state (according to the article). Incentives are not "being redrawn," they already favor the elite. Give the OP a little credit; his addition to the discussion is pretty good.

phillmv 14y ago
It always pays off to be an elite. It's just even better now than it was in the 1950s-1970s.
- kamaal 14y ago
  >>It always pays off to be an elite. Sure it does. But the point is to become an elite you first need to do something to get there. Its not like a lottery selects a few people and just gives them money. Its their money and earn it. Therefore even the distinction of elite. They earn it, so they get it. Just like everybody else can.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    > Its not like a lottery selects a few people and just gives them money. Being born is pretty much such a lottery.
  - stch 14y ago
    You don't think who your parents are is a consequence of luck? Did you just will yourself to become that particular fetus?
  - lilsunnybee 14y ago
    People from other classes can't easily acquire money, even through hard work and pluck, if enough artificial barriers are created to block their entry into the upper class.

Gormo 14y ago

> states whose ruling structure is inclusive and not extractive – i.e. you can open a business without having to belong to the aristocracy. Which demonstrates just how much the original article gets the issue exactly backwards. It's not the "1%" of income-earners that threaten to transform our 'inclusive' society into an 'extractive' one; the threat comes from the growing regulatory state itself - which the author seems to imply is the solution rather than the problem. The increasing politicization of every element of society - from economics to education to interpersonal relationships - is the danger; in many jurisdictions in the United States, you already need permits, zoning variances, professional licenses, etc. to initiate even the simplest economic venture. In most of the US, education is already firmly dominated by political institutions, and is increasingly rigid and uniform in structure and content. This situation will inevitably lead to the development of some kind of "extractive" elite - regardless of whether or not that elite ultimately corresponds to those the media currently label "the 1%" - if we can't find a way to reverse it. It's this politicization of society that threatens to subjugate and exclude everyone who isn't a member of the dominant political class - it's the centralization of power, and not the distribution of wealth, that we need to be concerned about.